Full text of "The Sexual Revolution (1945)"

See other formats

THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION

TOWARD A SELF-GOVERNING CHARACTER STRUCTURE

WILHELM REICH

Translated by
THEODORE P. WOLFE

ORGONE INSTITUTE PRESS

* 1945

NEW YORK

ORGONE INSTITUTE PRESS, INC.

400 EAST 57t11 street, new YORK 22, N. Y.

This volume is a translation of
Die Sexualh at im Kulturkampf

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The Editor of Katiishka raises the question, ‘*What do
we live for?” Perhaps he wants to get into far-flung dis-
cussions of philosophy. Perhaps, also, he is seized by a
fear of the insignificance of human life. If the former
is the case, all right. If the latter should be the case,
that would be bad. For this reason: “Living in order
to live” is the only answer to the question, no matter
how strange and one-sided it may sound. The whole
meaning of life is life itself, tlie process of living. In
order to comprehend the meaning of life one must, first
of all, love life, must become completely submerged in
it. Only then will one comprehend the meaning of life,
will one understand what one lives for. Life~in contra-
distinction to all man has created— is something that
requires no theory. Whoever is able to function in life
will need no theory of life.

FROM THE DIARY OF THE STUDENT KOSTYA RYAJBTSEV

Since it is not for us to create a plan for the future
that will hold for all time, all the more surely, what we
contemporaries have to do is the uncompromising crit-
ical evaluation of all that exists, uncompromising in
the sense that our criticism fears neitlier its own results
nor the conflict with the powers tliat be.

Karl Marx

CONTENTS

PREFACE TO TUmD EDITION xi

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION XVii

PART I

THE FIASCO OF SEXUAL MORALISM

I. THE CLINICAL BASIS OF SEX-ECONOMIC CRITICISM 3

1. From moral regulation to sex-economic regulation 3

2. A contradiction in Freud s cultural philosophy 10

3. Secondary impulses and moral regulation 21

4. Sex-economic 'morality” 25

II. THE FAILURE OF CONSERVATIVE SEXUAL REFORM 30

III. THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE AS THE BASIS OF

CONTRADICTIONS IN SEXUAL LIFE 34

IV. THE INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATIVE SEXUAL MORALITY 40

1. “Objective, non-political” science 40

2. Marital morality as the inhibiting factor in any kind

of sexual reform 51

a) Helene Stocker 51

b) Auguste Forel 57

c) The end of the World League for Sexual Reform 59

3. The blind alley of sex education 61

V. THE AUTHORIl’ARIAN FAMILY AS EDUCATIONAL APPARATUS 71

1. The influence of social ideology 73

2. The triangle structure 75

VI. THE PROBLEM OF PUBERTY 80

1. The conflict of puberty 80

vii

Viii CONTENTS

2. Social demand and sexual reality 84

a) Workers’ youth 87

b) Upper middle class youth 91

3. Some medical, non-ethical considerations of the sex

life of youth 102

a) Sexual abstinence in puberty 103

b) Masturbation 109

c) The sexual intercomse of adolescents 111

VII. COMPULSIVE MAIUUACE AND LASTING SEXUAL. RELATIONSHIP 116

1. The lasting sexual relationship 119

2. The problem of marriage 129

a) The social function of marriage 131

b ) The inherent contradiction in the institution of

marriage 142

PART II

THE STRUGGLE FOR THE “NEW LIFE” IN THE
SOVIET UNION

A NECESSARY PREAMBLE 153

VIII. THE “abolition OF THE FAMILY” 157

IX. THE SEXUAI. REVOLUTION 164

1. Progressive legislation 164

2. Warning voices from among tlie workers 169

X. THE INIHBITION OF THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION 180

1. 'The background of the inhibition 180

2. Moralizing instead of comprehension and practical

mastery 184

3. Objective causes of the inhibition 191

XI. LIBERATION OF BIRTH CONTROL AND HOMOSEXUALITY, AND

SUBSEQUENT INHIBITION 196

XH. THE INHIBmON IN THE YOUTH COMMUNES 212

1. Revolutionary youth 219,

CONTENTS iX

2. Youth communes 214

a) The commune Sorokin 217

b) The work commune Bolshevo for delinquents 221

c) Youth in search of new forms of living 222

d) The insoluble conflict between family and commune 227

3. Indispensable structural prerequisites 232

XIII. SOME PROBLEMS OF INFANTILE SEXUALITY 235

1. The creation of a collective structure 236

2. The creation of a non-authoritarian structure in the

child 240

3. Sliain-rcvoliitionary, pastoral education 247

4. Again the problem of delinquency 253

XIV. THE LESSONS OF THE SOVIET STRI^GGLE FOR A ‘ NEW LIFe” 260

PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION

The present third edition of my book, Die Sexualitat im Kul-
TURKAMPF (first edition 1930, second, enlarged edition, 1936),
appears first in the English language, tlianks to the indefatigable
efforts of Dr. Theodore P. Wolfe. Previous editions had not been
translated into English. It is unchanged as far as the material is
concerned. It has required, however, a good deal of change in
terminology, for the following reasons;

The material for this book was originally gathered, between
the years of 1918 and 1935, in the framework of the European
freedom movement. This movement was caught in the erroneous
belief that an authoritarian ideology was synonymous with the
life process of the ‘‘bourgeoisie” and that a freedom ideology was
synonymous with the life process of the “proletariat.” This basic
fallacy was the downfall of the European freedom movement.
The social happenings of the past 12 years Iiave provided a
bloody lesson for the correction of this fallacy. They showed
that authoritarian ideology and freedom ideology have nothing
to do with economic class boundaries. The ideology of a social
stratum is not an immediate reflection of its economic situation.
The emotional and mystical excitations of the masses of people
are of equal, not to say fur greater significance for the social
process than the purely economic interests. Authoritarian com-
pulsion pemieates all strata of society, of all nations, as does
thinking and acting in the direction of freedom. There are no
class boundaries as far as character structure is concerned as there
are boundaries of social or economic position. It is not a matter
of “class struggles” between proletariat and bourgeoisie, as a
mechanistic theoretical sociology would make us believe. No:
working individuals with a character structure capable of free-
dom fight working individuals with an authoritarian structure,

Xii PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION

and parasites of society; members of the higher social strata with
a freedom structure fight, at the risk of their existence, for the
rights of all working individuals against the dictators who, by the
way, arise from the proletariat. Soviet Russia, which owes its
existence to a proletarian revolution, is today, in 1944, sex-politi-
cally reactionary, while America, with its background of a
bourgeois revolution, is at least progressive, sex-politically. The
social concepts of the 19th century, with their purely economic
definition, no longer apply to the ideological stratification we see
in the cultural struggles of the 20th century. The social struggles
of today, to reduce it to the .simplest formula, are between the
interests safcguardin<^ and affirming life on the one hand, and the
interests destroying and suppressing life on the other. The basic
social question is no longer, “Are vou rich or poor?” It is: “Do
you favor, and do you fight for, the safeguarding of and the
greatest possible freedom of human life? Do you do, in a practical
way, everything in your power to make the masses of working
individuals so independent in their thinking, acting, and living
that the complete self-regulation of human life will become a
matter of course in a not too distant future?”

If the basic social question is thus concretely formulated, then
it goes without saying that what becomes the focus of social
endeavor is the living functioning of every member of society,
including the poorest. In this connection, the significance which,
over 15 years ago, I had to ascribe to social sexual suppression,
assumes gigantic proportions. Social and individual sex-economy
has proved the suppression of infantile and adolescent sex life to
be the basic mechanism by which character structures supporting
political, ideological and economic serfdom are produced. It is
no longer a matter of presenting a white, a yellow, a red or a
black party membership card to prove this or that or the other
mentality. It is a question of fully affirming, of aiding and safe-
guarding, the free and healthy life manifestations of the new-
born, of children, adolescents, women and men, in an unmis-
takable manner which forever excludes any social fraud— or of
suppressing and ruining them, no matter with what ideology or

PBEFACE TO THIBD EDITION

Xlll

alibi, whether in the interest of this or that state, whether
“proletarian” or “capitalistic,” for this or that religion, whether
Jewish, Christian or Buddhist. This is true everywhere and as
long as there is life, and must be recognized if one is to put
an end to the organized defraudation of the masses of working
individuals, if one wishes to prove in action that one takes one’s
democratic ideals seriously.

The necessity of a radical change in conditions of sexual
living has already permeated general social thinking and con-
tinues to do so at an accelerating pace. An understanding
attention to infantile love life is spreading in ever wider circles.
True, any social, practical affirmation of adolescent love life is
still practically absent; true, official educational science shrinks
from touching the “hot potato” presented by the sexual problem
of puberty; nevertheless, the idea tliat adolescent sexual inter-
course is a natural and matter-of-course demand no longer ap-
pears as horrendous as it did when I first presented it in 1929.
The success enjoyed by sex-economy in so many countries is due
to the many good educators and understanding parents to whom
the sexual needs of children and adolescents appear as completely
natural and justified. True, there is still the shame of medieval
sexual legislation and such atrocious institutions as reformatories;
but the rational thought of infantile and adolescent sex life has
gained ground irrevocably.

A new period of rationalism will have to hold its own against
the powerful remnants of medieval irrationalism. True, there are
stiU the exponents of “hereditary degeneration” and of “congeni-
tal criminality”; but the realization of the social causation of
crime and of emotional disease is becoming more and more wide-
spread. True, there still are only too many physicians who advo-
cate such measures as tying infants’ hands to keep them from
masturbating; but opposing voices make themselves heard even
in daily newspapers. True, healthy adolescents are still being sent
to the reformatory because they fulfil their natural love function;
but there are more and more judges who know that such legisla-
tion and such institutions are social crimes. True, there is still

Xiv PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION

ample clerical moralism and prying which condemns natural
sexuality as the work of the devil; but tliere is an increasing
number of theological students who do social work and rid them-
selves of their moralism. There are even bishops who advocate
contraception, even tliough the)' wish to see it restricted to legal
marriage. True, many too many young people still suffer ship-
wi’eck in their diflBcult struggle for happiness in love; but it
already happens that a father, in a public radio discussion, is
taken to task for condemning his daughter for having a child
without being legally married. True, there ar<; still compulsive
marriage laws which make it possible to make divorce an affair
of blackmail; but the disgust with such laws and such divorce
proceedings grows apace and becomes more and more general.

What we are living through is a genuine, deep-reaching
revolution of cultural living. It takes place without parades, uni-
forms, drums or cannon salutes; but its victims are no fewer than
those of a battle in the civil wars of 1848 or 1917. The senses of
the animal, man, for his natural life functions arc awakening from
a sleep of thousands of years. The revolution in our life goes to
the roots of our emotional, social and economic existence.

Particularly tlie revolutions in family life, this emotional
Achilles heel of society, take place in a chaotic manner. They are
chaotic because our authoritarian family structure, taken over
from the old patriarchy, is shaken in its foundations and in the
process of giving way to a better, natural family form, and be-
cause society fails to give protection to this process. This book
does not argue with natural familial relationships, but it does
attack the authoritarian compulsive forms of the family which are
maintained by rigid laws, the reactionary human character struc-
ture and by an irrational public opinion. Tlie happenings in Soviet
Russia in tlie course of the social revolution after 1917 which are
discussed in the second part of this book demonstrate the emo-
tionally and socially dangerous character of these revolutions.
The crisis of the family, which Soviet Russia tried to solve in a
short span of time in the ’20 s, now takes place all over the world,
much more slowly, but also much more tlioroughly. When I speak

PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION

of a “deep-reaching revolution of our cultural living” I mean
primarily the replacement of the patriarchal-authoritarian famUy
by the natural form of the family. But it is precisely this natural
form of the relationships between man and wife and between
parents and children which still meets the most dangerous social
obstacles.

The word revolutionary in this book, as in other sex-economic
writings, does not mean the use of dynamite, but the use of truth;
it does not mean secret meetings and the distribution of illegal
literature, but open and public appeal to human conscience, with-
out reservations, circumlocutions and alibis; it does not mean
political gangsterism, executions, appointments, making and
breaking of pacts; it means revolutionary in the sense of being
radical, that is, of going to the roots of things. Sex-economy is
revolutionary in the sense of the revolutions wliich were brought
about in medicine by the discovery of the microbes and of uncon-
scious psychic life, in technic by the discovery of the laws of
mechanics and of electricity, in economics by the discovery of the
nature of tlie productive power, working power. Sex-economy
is revolutionary because it discloses the laws of human character
formation and because it bases human striving for freedom on the
functional laws of biological energy instead of on freedom slogans.
We are revolutionary in approaching the life process with the
methods of natural science, instead of approaching it mystically,
mechanistically or politically. The discovery of the cosmic orgone
energy which functions in living organisms as biological energy
gives our social endeavors a solid foundation in natural science.

The social development of our times, everywhere, is in the
direction of an internationalism without any ifs and whens. The
rule over peoples by politicians must be replaced by a scientific
guidance of social processes. What matters is human society, and
not the state. Wliat matters is truth, and not tactics. Natural
science is confronted with its biggest task ever: that of finally
and definitively taking over the responsibility for the future of a
tortured humanity. Politics has definitely played out. Natural
scientists, whether they want to or not, are called upon to guide

XVI

PBEFACE TO THIRD EDITION

social processes, and the politicians will have to learn, willy-nilly,
to do useful work. To help tlie new, rational scientific order of
life, for which so many are stniggling everywliere, to break
tlirough, is one of the tasks of this volume. He who, in the sense
of living functioning, is decent and is conscious of social responsi-
bility, can and will not misunderstand or misuse it.

Not:iemher, 1944. W. R.

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

In October, 1935, three hundred well-known psychiatrists
called on the world to reflect. Italy had just invaded Abyssinia.
Thousands of people, among them women and children, had been
slain. One began to get an idea of \he proportions of mass murder
in the case of a new world war.

That a nation like tlie Italian, where masses of people were
starving, would follow the call to the colors with enthusiasm and
without rebellion was to be expected; nevertlmless, the fact was
not understandable. It confirmed the general impression that not
only is the world ruled in some places by individuals in whom
the psychiatrists could not fail to detect signs of mental derange-
ment; more, the people of all parts of the world are ill: their
reactions are abnormal, are in conflict with people's own desires
and actual possibilities. These are signs of abnormal reactions: to
starve in the presence of abundance; to be exposed to cold, rain
and snow in die presence of coal, building machinery and ample
building space; to believe diat a divine power with a long white
beard governs cverydiing and diat one is at the mercy of this
power, for good or evil; to murder innocent people with enthusi-
asm and to believe to have to conquer a country of which one
never had heard before; to go in rags and at the same time feel
oneself the representative of the “greatness of die nation"; to
forget what a politician promised before he became leader of the
nation; to delegate to any individuals, though they be statesmen,
almost absolute power over one's life and fate; to be imable to
conceive of the fact that die so-called great helmsmen of the
state, too, have to sleep, eat, answer the call of nature, diat they,
too, are governed by unconscious, uncontrollable emotional
drives and have tlieir sexual disturbances like any ordinary mor-
tal; to consider the beating of children in the interest of “cultiue"

Xviii PREFACE TO SECOND EDmON

a matter of course; to deny to adolescents, people in the prime of
their hves, tlie happiness of the sexual miion. One could go on
exemplifying indefinitely.

The manifesto of tlie three hundred psychiatrists was a prag-
matic action on tlie part of science which usually considers itself
unpragmatic. But this action was incomplete. Though it described
the phenomena correctly, it did not go to their roots. It did not
ask the question as to the nature of tlie general disease of the
human beings of today. It did not ask why the masses manifest
such a boundless readiness to self-sacrifice in the interest of a few
armament industrialists. It did not state tlie difference between
the actual gratification of needs and the ilhisorv gratification
provided by nationalistic enthusiasm, a gratification which is
closely related to the ecstatic states of religious fanatics. Hunger
and misery of the masses, together witli increasing production,
instead of leading to a rational planned economy, led to the
affirmation of hunger and pauperization on the part of tlie masses
themselves. The socialist movement lost momentum. The prob-
lem here is not the psychology of the statesmen but that of the
masses.

The statesmen of today are friends, brothers, cousins or fathers-
in-law of magnates of finance. The fact that the mass of thinking,
of educated people does not see this and act accordingly, is a
problem in itself. It cannot be solved by “psychodiagnostic tests”
of individuals. Mental disturbances, among them those of impair-
ment of rational thinking, resignation, submission to authority
and Fiihrers, are, reduced to the simplest formula, an expression
of a disturbed harmony in vegetative life, specifically, in sexual
life, as it is brought about by an authoritarian society.

The grotesque symptoms of the insane are nothing but exag-
gerations of such mystical and credulous attitudes as are dis-
played by whole peoples when they try to ward off wars by
means of prayer. In the mental hospitals of the world, which
house about four out of every 1000 people, no more attention is
paid to the regulation of the vegetative sexual life than in poli-
tics. Official science has to this day left the chapter SEXUALITY

PBEFACE TO SECOND EDITION XiX

unwritten. Nevertheless, the causation of abnormal psychic reac-
tions by misdirected and unsatisfied sexual energy can no longer
be doubted. To raise the question as to ihe social regulation of
human sex life, therefore, means to go to the roots of the psychic
mass illness.

It is sexual energy which governs the structure of human feel-
ing and thinking. “Sexuality” (physiologically speaking, the
parasympathetic function), is the life energy per se. Its suppres-
sion means disturbance of fundamental life functions, not only
in the medical field, but quite generally. Tlie most important
social expression of this fact is irrational human action, mysticism
and religiosity, readiness to engage in wars, etc. The starting
point of sexual politics, therefore, must be the question. What is
the reason for the suppression of human love life?

Let us briefly summarize the sex-economic concepts of the rela-
tionship between human p.sychology and socio-economic factors.
Society forms, alters and suppresses human needs; in this process,
human structure is formed. This structure is not inborn, but
develops in each individual in the course of the struggle between
need and society. There is no congenital structure of the impulses;
this structure is acquired in the course of the first few years of
life. What is congenital is merely a larger or smaller amount of
vegetative energ}'. Authoritarian society creates the structure of
the serf who obeys and rebels at one and the same time. A non-
autlioritarian society will want to produce “free” people. There-
fore, it will have to know not only how the structure of the
authoritarian individual was brought about, but what forces must
be utilized in order to create a non-authoritarian structure.

Since the core of psychic functioning is the sexual function,
the core of practical psychology can be nothing but sexual poli-
tics. This is reflected in literature and the film: 90% of all novels
and 99% of all films and plays are productions whose appeal is to
unsatisfied sexual needs.

The biological needs, the need for food and sexual gratification,
determine the necessity of social organization in general. The
resulting “modes of production” alter tlie basic needs, without

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

abolishing tliem, and thus create needs of a new kind. The altered
and newly created needs in turn determine the furtlier develop-
ment of production, of the means of production (machines and
tools), and with that the social and economic interpersonal rela-
tionships. On the basis of these interpersonal relationships of
production tliere develop certain concepts of life, morals, phi-
losophy, etc. These concepts roughly correspond to the stage of
technical development at any given time, that is, to the ability
to comprehend and master human existence. The social "‘ide-
ology” thus developed in turn forms human structure. In this way,
it becomes a material power; it exists in the human structure in
the form of what is called ‘"tradilion.” The further development
depends entirely on whether society as a whole participates in
the production of the social ideologv, or whether only a minority
does so. If a minority has political power, it also has the power
to form general ideology and structure. Consequently, in authori-
tarian society, the thinking of the majority of people corresponds
to the interests of the political and economic rulers. In a true
democracy, a work-democracy, on the otlier hand, where there
are no power interests of a minority, the social ideology would
correspond to the life interests of all members of society.

Heretofore, social ideology has been thought of as the mere
sum of concepts about the economic process as they formed “in
tlie heads of people.” Now, after the victory of the political reac-
tion in Germany, and after what the irrational behavior of the
masses has taught us, ideology can no longer be regarded as a
mere reflection. As soon as an ideology has taken root in the
structure of people and has altered it, it has become a material
political power. There is no socio-economic process of historical
significance which is not anchored in the psychic structure of the
masses and which does not express itself in the mode of behavior
of the masses. There is no such thing as a “development of pro-
ductive powers per se”; there is only a development of inhibition
of human structure, feeling and thinking on the basis of socio-
economic processes. The economic process, that is, the develop-
ment of the machines, is functionally identical witli the process

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

XXI

of psychic structure in the people who create the economic
process, who furtlier or inhibit it and who arc influenced by it.
Economy without active emotional human structure is incon-
ceivable; so is human feeding, thinking and acting without eco-
nomic basis. One-sided neglect of one or the other leads to
psychologism (‘'Only the psycliic human forces make history”)
as well as to ccoyiomism (“Only te*chnical development makes
history”). Instead of talking so much about diale^ctics, one should
try to comprehend the living mutual relationships lietween groups
of people, nature and maclnnes. They functio)^ as a unity, and at
the same time mutually condition each other. Certainly, it will
not be possible to master the present cultural process unless one
compreliends the fact that the core of the psychic structure is the
sexual structure, and that tlie cultural process is essentially de-
termined by sexual needs.

The small, miserable, alh'gedlv “unpolitical” sexual life must be
studied in connection with the problems of authoritarian society.
Politics docs not take place at the diplomats’ luncheon but in
this everyday life. Social consciousness in everyday living, there-
fore, is indispensable. If the 1,800 millions inhabitants of the
world understood the activities of the leading hundred diplo-
mats, everything would be all right. Then, society and human
needs would no longer be govoriied according to armament inter-
ests and political exigency. But these 1,800 millions of people will
not be able to master tlieir own fate imtil they become conscious
of their own modest jiersonal lives. Wliat keeps t])em from doing
so are the two inner powers of sexual moralism and religious
mysticism.

The economic order of the past 200 yeirrs has changed human
structure considerably. Yet, this change is insignificant compared
to the comprehensive human impoverishment brought about by
thousands of years of suppression of natural living, particularly
of natural sexuality. It is only this suppression over thousands of
years which has created the mass-psychological soil of fear of
authority and submission to it, of incredible humility on the one
side and sadistic brutality on the other, and by which the capi-

XXii PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

talist order of the past 200 years has been able to exist. The fact
should not be forgotten, though, that it was socio-economic
processes wliich, tliousarids of years ago, initiated this change in
hiinuin structure. It is no longer, then, a problem of a machine
industry of 200 years’ standing, but of a human structure of about
5,000 years’ standing, a structure which thus far has proved in-
capable of putting tlie machines to its service. As magnificent and
revolutionarv as the discovery of the laws of capitalist cconom}'
was, it alone is insufficient to solve the problem of human sub-
mission to authority. True, there arc groups of people and frac-
tions of suppressed classes everywhere who fight for “bread and
freedom,” but the ox’crwhelming majority of people stand back
and pray, or tliey try to fight for freedom on the side of their
suppressors. The masses experience the fact of dire need every
hour of the day. The fact that one is ready to give them bread
only and not all tlie pleasures in life, makes them only all the
more undemanding. Wliat freedom really is or could be, nobody
has as yet told the masses concretely. One has not tangibly ex-
plained to them the possibilities of general happiness in life.
Where this was attempted, it was done in tcn'ins of pathological,
guilt-laden and shoddy amusements. The core of happiness in
life is sexual liappiness. Nobody of any political importance has
ever dared to point this out. The statement was made, instead,
that sexuality was a private matter and had nothing to do witli
politics. The political reaction thinks otherwise!

The French translator of my book, Geschlechtsreife, Ent-
HALTSAMKEiT, Ehemoral (La Crise Sexuelle, Paris, 1934),
compares Freudo-Marxism with Marxism and says that the spe-
cific psychoanalytic way of thinking changes the Marxist formula-
tions. “Reich,” he wites, “does not consider the sexual crisis pri-
marily a result of the conflict between declining capitalism and
new social tendencies, the new proletarian morality, but as the re-
sult of the conflict between the natural, eternal sexual needs and
the capitalist social order.” Such objections are always instructive
and lead to more precise and inclusive formulations.

The critic here makes tlie distinction between class difference

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

xxiil

on the one liand and conflict between need and society on the
otlier. Yet, these two opposites should be seen not merely in their
antithesis; they are both to be explained on the same basis. True,
seen from an objective class point of view, the sexual crisis is an
expression of the conflict between capitalist decline and revolu-
tionary ascendency. But at tlie same time it is the expression of
the conflict between sexual need and mechanistic society. How
do these two things go together? Objectively the se.xual crisis is
a manifestation of class difference; but how does it manifest itself
subjectively? What is tliis “new proletarian morality”? Capitalist
class morality is against sexuality and thus creates the conflict in
the first place. Tlie revolutionary movement eliminates the con-
flict by first creating a sex-affirmative ideology and then giving
it practical forms by legislation and a new order of sexual living.
Tliat is, authoritarian social order and social sexual suppression
go hand in hand, and revolutionar)' “morality” and gratification
of the sexual needs go together. “New revolutionary morality” in
itself means nothing; it becomes concrete only by the fact of
orderly gratification of the needs, not only in the sexual realm.
Unless revolutionary ideology recognizes the fact that this is its
main concrete content it remains empty talk, in conflict with the
real facts. This conflict between ideology and reality is easily
demonstrable in the Soviet Union. If “new morality” is really to
have any meaning, it can only be th.at of making moral regulation
superfluous and of establishing self-regulation of social living. If
one is not starving one has no impulse to steal and consequently
does not need a morality which keeps one fiom stealing. The
same basic law also applies to sexuality: if one is sexually satisfied
one has no impulse to rape and needs no morality against such an
impulse. This is sex-economic self-regulation instead of compul-
sive moral regulation. Communism, as a result of ignorance of the
laws of sexuality, attempted to retain the form of conservative
morality and to change its contents; the result is a “new morahty”
which takes the place of the old. This is incorrect. Just as, accord-
ing to Lenin, the state does not merely change its form (save
during the transition period of the dictatorship of the proletariat).

XXiv PREFACE TO SECOND EDmON

but “withers away,” so does compulsive morality not merely
change its form, but it also withers away.

The second error of our critic is the belief lliat wc assume an
ahsolufe sexuality which comes into conflict with society. It is
a basic error of official psychoanalysis to think of the impulses as
absolute biologically given facts; true, this is not inherent in
psychoanalysis but in the mechanistic thinking of tlie analysts
which, as is always the case with mechanistic thinking, is supple-
mented with metapliysical tlieses. Impulses, also, develop, change
and subside. The stretches of time, liowever, in which biological
changes take place, are so long compared with the time in which
social changes take place that they impress us as absolute facts
while the social changes impress us as transitory and relative. If
we examine concrete social processes wliicli are very limited in
time, it is sufficient if we find a conflict between a given biological
impulse and the manner in which the social order treats it. Not
so for the biological laws of the sexual process; here, we must
carefully consider the relativity and changeability of the emo-
tional structure. If, for instance, we consider the life process of
individuals the first prerecpiisite of ant/ social process, it is suffi-
cient to assume that life with its needs exists. But this life itself
is not absolute. If we consider cosmic spans of time, life is some-
thing which developed from inorganic matter and will change
back into it. These considerations show better than anything else
how infinitesimal and insignificant arc man s illusions concerning
his "spiritual, transcendental” tasks, and how important, on the
otlier hand, is the connection between human vegetative life and
nature as a whole. This could be misinterpreted in the sense that
the social struggle is also insignificant compared with cosmic
processes of wliicli man and his society is only a trifling part. One
might say that it is relatively insignificant that people kill each
otlier, that they carry a Hitler to power or that they try to abolish
unemployment while the stars move through the universe; that it
would be better just to enjoy nature. Such an interpretation would
be erroneous, for the standpoint of natural science militates
against the reaction and favors work democracy. The reaction

PBEFACE TO SECOND EDITION

XXV

tries to press tlie injBnite cosmos and the feeling for nature in
which it is reflected in the human beings into the framework of
the infinitely small idea of sexual abstinence and sacrifice for
nationalistic purposes. Work democracy, on the other hand, tries
to bring the small individual and social life into the orbit of the
general natural process; it tries to eliminate the conflict created
in society by thousands of years of exploitation, mysticism, and
sexual suppression; in brief, it is for natural sexuality and against
unnatural sexual morality, for international planned economy and
against exploitation and nationalism.

National Socialist ideology contains a rational core which is
expressed in the slogan of the ‘‘closeness of blood and soil” and
which gives an enormous impetus to the reactionary movement.
National Socialist practice, on the other hand, continues to adhere
to all those social forces which contradict the fundament of the
revolutionary movement, the unity of society, nature and technic.
It continues to adhere to the principle of class society which is
in no way eliminated by the illusion of the unity of the people,
and to the private ownership of the means of production which
is in no way eliminated by any idea of “the public weal.” National
Socialism expresses in its ideology, in a mystical manner, what
exists as rational core in the revolutionary movement, class-less
society and a life in harmony with nature. The revolutionary
movement, on the other hand, though not yet fullv conscious of
its ideology, is clear about tlie economic and social prerequisites
of a realization of its rational view of life, of the realization of
happiness in life.

Tliis book summarizes the criticism of tlie prevailing sexual
conditions and concepts as it resulted from sex-economic medical
experience over a period of years. Part I (The Fiasco of Sexual
Morahsm) appeared about 6 years ago under the title, Ge-
SCHLECHTSREIFE, Enthaltsamkeit, Ehemoral. It was enlarged
in some places, but remained essentially unchanged. Part II (The
Struggle for the “New Life” in the Soviet Union) is new. It is
based on material collected during the past 10 years. The presen-

jrxj7

PBEFACE TO SECOND EDITION

tation of the inhibition of the sexual revolution in Soviet Russia
mWmake \l c\eai w\\y, m my early sex-political writings, I kept
pointing to the Soviet Union. During the past 4 years or so, much
hns changed Together with a general regression to authoritarian
principles in Soviet Russia^ the achievements of the sexual revo-
lution are being given up to an increasing degree.

Needless to say, it has been impossible even to toucli upon all
the relevant problems. A criticism of the prevailing theories of
psychic illness would have belonged here as well as an extensive
treatment of religion. This was not possible because the problems
are inexhaustible and the book had to be kept within reasonable
size. The sexual politics of fascism and of the church as the sex-
political organization of the patriarchate have been treated in my
book, Massenpsyciiologie des Faschismus. The present book is
neither a sexological textbook nor a history of the present sexual
crisis. It confines itself to the demonstration by way of individual
examples, of the general basic traits of the conflicts in present-day
sexual living. The sex-economic concepts presented here are not
the result of desk-work. Without many years of closest contact
with tlie youth of working class, of middle class and of intel-
lectual circles, and without constantly checking the experiences
gathered there by the therapeutic work udth patients, not a sen-
tence of this book could have been written. This must be said in
view of certain kinds of criticism. Discussion is fruitful and
necessary. But it is a senseles^ waste of time and energy unless
the critics go to the direct source of sexological experience:
the lives of the uneducated or miseducated masses, the people
who suffer and often struggle, the people whom the God-sent
Fiihrers call Untermenschen, On the basis of my practical ex-
periences in Germany and Austiia, sociological and clinical, I
could presume to form an opinion about the course of the sexual
revolution in Soviet Russia, even though I did not have constant
personal contact with the happenings there. Quite possibly, some
aspects of the sex-political conditions are presented somewhat
one-sidedly. But the aim was not that of pronouncing absolute
truths but of giving a basic presentation of the general ten-

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

XXVll

dencies and conflicts. It goes without saying that any correction
of facts win be taken into account in later editions.

Finally, I would like to say to iny friends who worriedly warn
me to leave “dangerous politics” alone and to confine myself to
work in natural science, that sexology, if it is to deserve its name,
is revolutionary, whether it wants to he or not. Who would, in a
burning building, calmly WTite esthetic treatises on the color
sense of crickets?

November, 1935.

W.R.

PART ONE

THE FIASCO OF SEXUAL MORALISM

Chapter I

THE CLINICAL BASIS OF SEX-
ECONOMIC CRITICISM

1. FROM MORAL RECJULATION TO SEX-ECONOMIC REGULATION

The sex-economic concepts here presented are based on clinical
observations of patients who, in the course of a successful char-
acter-analytic treatment, undergo a change in their psychic
structure. The question will rightly be raised whether the find-
ings pertaining to the change of an individual neurotic structure
into a healtliy structure can be applied to the problems of mass
structure and its possible alteration. Instead of going into tlieo-
retical discussions, let^s look at the facts themselves. Certainly,
irrational mass behavior cannot be coinprchended except on the
basis of observations made in the neurotic individual. After all,
the principle is the same as in the fight against an epidemic. One
fights an epidemic by first examining its individual victims and
finding the particular bacillus and its effects which are basically
the same for all the victims of the epidemic. Tlie patliological
behavior of the average mass individual shows clearly the traits
with which the individual patient has made us familiar: general
sexual inhibition; the compulsive character of the moral de-
mands; tlie inability to conceive of the compatibility of sexual
gratification and achievement in work; the peculiar belief that
the sexuality of children and adolescents is a pathological aber-
ration; the inability to tliink of any other form of sexuality tlian
lifelong monogamy; the lack of confidence in one’s own strength
and judgment, with a consequent longing for an omniscient,
guiding father-figure, etc. The basic conflicts of all mass indi-
viduals are the same; differences in individual development lead
only to differences in detail. If one tries to apply to the masses

4 THE CLINICAL BASIS OF SEX-ECONOMIC CRITICISM

what one has learned from the individual, one can apply only
that which refers to the conflicts which are typical for everyone.
In that case, the observations concerning the change in individual
structure can correctly be applied to the masses.

Our patients come to us with typical disturbances. The work-
ing capacity is always reduced. The actual achievement does
not correspond to the demands which society makes on the
patient, nor to the capacities which he feels in himself. The
capacity for sexual gratification is always greatly reduced if not
entirely destroyed. The natiural capacity for genital gratification
is always found to be replaced by non-genital ( pregcnital ) modes
of gratification; there are sadistic concepts of the sexual aet, rape
phantasies, ete. It ean always be sho^vn clearly that this change
in character and in sexual behavior took definite form around
the age of 4 or 5. Tlie disturbance in achievement, social and
sexual, sooner or later, becomes plainly evident to everyone.
Every patient is burdened with a conflict between instinct and
morals; under the conditions of neurotic sexual repression, this
conflict is insoluble. The moral demands which the patient-
under constant social pressure— continues to make on himself,
maintain and increase a damming-up of his sexual— and, in a
wider sense, vegetative— needs. The more severe the disturbance
of genital potency, the greater the discrepancy between need
for gratification and capacUtj for gratification. This in turn ac-
centuates the moral pressure which is needed to keep the
dammed-up energies under control. Since the whole conflict is
essentially unconscious, tlie individual is inevitably unable to
solve it by himself.

In the conflict between instinct and morals, ego, and outer
world, the organism is forced to armor itself against the instinct
as well as the outer world. This armoring of tlie organism results
inevitably in a limitation of the total ability to live. The majority
of people suffer from this rigid armoring; there is a wall between
them and life. This armor is the chief reason for the loneliness of
so many people in the midst of collective living.

Character-analytic treatment releases the vegetative energies

FROM MORAL REGULATION TO SEX-ECONOMIC REGULATION 5

from their fixation in the armor. The immediate result of this is
an intensification of the antisocial and perverse impulses, and
with that, of social anxiety and moral pressure. If, however, one
dissolves, at the same time, the infantile fixations to the parental
home, to tlie infantile traumata and tlie antisexual taboos, more
and more energy finds its way to the genital system. With that,
the natural genital needs awaken to new life or are established
for the first time. If, now, one eliminates the genital inhibitions
and genital anxiety, if thus the patient acquires the ability for
full orgastic gratification and has the good fortmie to find a
suitable sexual partner, one observes a change in the patient's
total behavior, die extent of which is often surprising. The most
important changes are the following:

While previously die whole thinking and acting was deter-
mined by unconscious, irrational motives, the patient now be-
comes increasingly capable of acting and reacting rationally. In
the course of this process, inclinations to mysticism, religiosity,
infantile dependence, superstitious beliefs, etc., disappear more
and more, without the exertion of any ‘‘education al" influence
on the patient. While previously the patient was completely
armored, incapable of contact with himself and his environment,
capable only of unnatural pseud o-contacis, he now develops an
increasing capacity for immediate, natural contact with his im-
pulses as well as his environment. The result of this is a visible
development of a natural, spontaneous beliavior instead of the
previous unnatural, artificial behavior.

In most patients we observe a double nature, as it were. Out-
wardly, they appear unnatural and queer. Yet, behind all diis
pathological fa(;ade one can sense that which is healthy. What
makes people individually diffei'ent is, as things arc today, essen-
tially their individual neurotic superstructure. In the process of
getting well, this individual differentiation is largely lost and
gives way to a simplification of behavior. As a result of this
simplification, patients on their way to liealth become more
similar in their basic traits, without, however, losing their indi-
vidual characteristics. For example, each individual will cover

6 THE CLINICAI. BASIS OF SEX-ECONOMIC CRITICISM

up his inability to work in a different manner. If he now loses
his work disturbance and acquires confidence in his own func-
tioning, he also loses all those character traits which served to
overcompensate for his inferiority feeling. While tlie overcom-
pensations may be highly individual, the self-confidence based
on free-flowing achievement is, in all people, fundamentally the
same.

The same is true for the attitude toward sexuality. If one re-
presses ones own sexuality one develops all kinds of moralistic
and esthetic defenses. When the patients regain contact with
their own sexual needs, these neurotic differentiations disappear.
The attitude toward natural sexuality becomes similar in all
individuals; it is characterized by the affirmation of pleasure
and the absence of sexual guilt feelings. Previously, the insoluble
conflict between instinctual need and moral inhibition forced the
patient to act, in every respect, according to some law outside and
above him. Whatever he thought or did, he measured by a
moralistic yardstick, while at the same time he protested against
this compulsion. When the patient, in the process of acquiring a
different structure, realizes the indispensability of genital grati-
fication, he loses this moralistic strait-jacket and with it the
damming-up of his instinctual needs. Previously, the moral
pressure had intensified the impulse and made it antisocial; this
in turn necessitated an intensification of tlic moral pressure. Now,
when the capacity for gratification begins to equal the intensity
of the impulses, moral regulation becomes unnecessary. The
previously indispensable mechanism of self-control is no longer
needed. This is so because the energy is being withdrawn from
the antisocial impulses; there is little left which needs to be kept
under control. The licalthy individual has no compulsive morality
because he has no impulses which call for moral inhibition.
What antisocial impulses may be left are easily controlled, pro-
vided the basic genital needs are satisfied. All this is shown
clearly in the practical behavior of the individual who has be-
come orgastically potent. Intercourse with a prostitute becomes
impossible. Sadistic phantasies disappear. To expect love as a

FROM MORAL REGULATION TO SEX-ECONOMIC REGULATION 7

right or even to rape tlie sexual partner becomes inconceivable,
as do ideas of seducing children. Anal, exhibitionistic or other
perversions disappear, and with these the social anxiety and
guilt feelings. The incestuous fixation to parent and siblings
loses its interest; this liberates the energy which was bound up
in such fixations. In brief, all these phenomena point to the fact
that the organism is capable of ^self -re ^illation.

People who have acquired the ability for orgastic satisfaction
are far more capable of inonogamous relationships than people
who suffer from sexual stasis. And tlie monogamous attitude of
these people is not due to the inhibition of polygamous impulses
or to moral scruples; it is based on the sex-economic principle of
experiencing again and again vivid sexual pleasure and gratifica-
tion with tiic same sexual partner. This presupposes full sexual
harmony between tlie sexual partners. There is, in this respect,
no difference between the healthy man and tlie healthy woman.
If, on the other hand, a suitable partiier is lacking, whicli under
present sexual conditions is the rule, the ability for monogamy
turns into its opposite, an irrepressible search for a suitable part-
ner. If he or she is found, the rnoTiogamous attitude re-establishes
itself automatically and continues as long as there is sexual har-
mony and gratification. Thoughts of and desire for other partners
either do not appear or, because of the interest in the partner,
are not put into action. However, the old relationship inevitably
collapses if it goes stale and a new companionship promises
higher pleasure. This fact, incontrovertible as it is, is an insoluble
conflict in the sexual order of our society, in which economic
interests and consideration of the children are at variance with
the sex-economic principle. Thus it is just the most healthy people
who, under a sex-negative social order, are exposed to the most
intense subjective suffering.

The attitude of orgastically distiirbed people, that is, the ma-
jority of people, is different. Since they derive less pleasure from
the sexual act, they are better able to do without a sexual part-
ner for a shorter or longer period of time, or else, they are less
fastidious, because the sexual act does not mean much to tliem.

8 THE CLINICAL BASIS OF SEX-ECONOMIC CRITICISM

The promiscuity of tlieir sexual relations is a result of this sexual
disturbance. Such sexually disturbed people are better able to
submit to the demands of lifelong monogamy. Their fidelity,
however, is not based on sexual gratification but on moral
inliibitions.

When a patient on his way to health finds a suitable sexual
partner, he not only loses all nervous symptoms; he also finds,
often to his surprise, that he is capable of regulating his life and
of solving conflicts in an unneurotic way, with a facility pre-
viously unknown to him. He develops an automatic security in
directing his impulses and social relationships. In all this, he
simply follows the pleasure principle. The simplification in his
attitude toward life, as expressed in his structure, his thinking
and feeling, eliminates many sources of conflict from his ex-
istence. At the same time, he acquires a critical attitude toward
the moral order of today.

It is clear, then, that the principle of tnoral regulation is
opposed to tliat of sex-economic self -regulation.

In our society which is sexually sick and refuses any aid in the
task of promoting sexual health, the therapeutic task of making
people capable of orgastic gratification meets all kinds of almost
insuperable obstacles. One is the limited number of sexually
healthy people who come into consideration as sexual partners
for the patient who is approaching cure. In addition, there are all
the various limitations imposed by a compulsive sexual morality.
The person who has become genitally healthy must of necessity
change from being an unconscious hypocrite and become a con-
scious hypocrite toward all those institutions and social condi-
tions which impede the development of his healthy natural
sexuality. Others develop the ability to alter their environment
in such a manner that the restricting influence of the present
social order becomes insignificant.

The clinical experiences just summarized^ allow us to draw
general conclusions with regard to the social situation. True, the

1 For an extensive presentation, cf. Die Funktjon des Oroasm us and Charakter-
Analyse. Translators note: See also The Function of the Orgasm.

FROM MORAL REGULATION TO SEX-ECONOMIC REGULATION y

vast perspectives of these conclusions, with regard to such prob-
lems as the prevention of the neuroses, the struggle against mysti-
cism and superstition, the age-old problem of the alleged conflict
between nature and culture, instinct and morals, etc., were at
first surprising and confusing. But years of checking against
ethnological and sociological findings left no doubt as to the
correctness of these conclusions drawn from the change in struc-
ture from the moral principle to the sex-economic principle of
self-regulation. Tf, now, a social movement would succeed in
changing social conditions in such a manner as to replace the
sex negation of todav by general sex affirmation (with all its
economic prerequisites), then the alteration of the structure of
the masses could become a realitv. This docs not mean, of course,
that in that case one would be able to treat all members of
society; this is a frequent misunderstanding of sex-economy. It
only means that the experiences gained in the process of chang-
ing the individual structure provide valid basic principles for a
different education of the infant and the adolescent. This edu-
cation would no longer produce and cultivate the conflict be-
tween nature and culture, individual and society, sexuality and
sociality.

The fact must be recognized, however, that the therapeutic
experiences and theoretical findings made possible through the
introduction of the orgasm theory into psychotherapy are at
variance with practically every concept previously evolved by
science. The absolute antithesis of sexuality and culture governs
all of morality, philosophy, culture, science, psychology and
therapy like an inviolable dogma. In all this, Freud s psychoanaly-
sis undoubtedly assumes the most important position; in spite of
its original clinical and scientific discoveries, it adheres, neverthe-
less, to this absolute antithesis. It is imperative, therefore, to de-
scribe briefly the contradictions at the roots of the psvchoanalytic
cultural philosophy which caused its scientific work to degen-
erate into metaphysics. This cultural philosophy is the source of
great confusion.

THE CLINICAL BASIS OF SEX-ECONOMIC CBITICISM

2 . A CONTRADKrnON IN FREUD’s CIULTURAL PHILOSOPHY

a) Sexual repression and instinct renunciation.

A serious discussion of die sociological consequences of psy-
choanalysis requires the clarification of the following question:
Is the so-called psychoanalytic sociology and Weltanschauung,
as presented in Freud’s later works and elaborated into often
grotesque formulations in the writings of such of his pupils as
Roheirn, Pfister, MiiUer-Braunschweig, Kolnai, Laforgue and
others, a consistent and logical development of psychoanalytic
psycliology? Or is the opposite the case? Docs this sociology and
Weltanschauung owe its existence to a break with clinical psy-
choanalytic findings, to an incomplete or erroneous interpretation
of clinical findings? If sucli a break could be demonstrated in
clinical theory itself, if, furthennore, the connection could be
shown between this clinical theory and the basic sociological
concepts, the most important source of error in analytic sociology
would be found. (Another source of error is the equation of
individual and society.)

Freud’s cultural philosophical standpoint was always that cul-
tine owes its existence to instinctual repression and renuncia-
tion. The basic idea is that cultural achie^'ements are the result
of sublimated sexual energy; from this it follows logically that
sexual suppression and repression are an indispensable factor
in the cultural process. There is historical evidence of the incor-
rectness of this formulation; there are in existence highly cul-
tured societies without any sexual suppression and a completely
free sex life.“

What is correct in this theory is only that sexual suppression
forms the mass-psychological basis for a certain culture, namely,
the patriarchal authoritarian one, in all of its forms. What is
incorrect is the formulation that sexual suppression is the basis
of culture in general. How did Freud arrive at this concept?
Certainly not for conscious reasons of politics or Weltan-
schaimng. On the contrary: early works such as that on “cultural

- (./. VV. Reich, Dfr EiMiRFcij df.k Sf.xual.mou.u., 1935.

A CONTOADICTION IN FREUDS CULTURAL PHILOSOPHY 11

sexual morals” point definitely in the direction of a criticism of
culture in the sense of a sexual revolution. Freud never followed
this path; on the contrary, he was adverse to any attempts in this
direction and once called them “not being in the middle of the
road of psychoanalysis.” It was exactly my early attempts at a sex
policy involving criticism of culture which led to the first serious
differences of opinion between l>eud and me.

In analyzing the psychic mechanisms, Freud found the un-
conscious filled with antisocial impulses. Everyone using the
psychoanalytic method can confirm these findings. Every man
has phantasies of murdering his father and of taking the father’s
place with his motlicr. In everyone, sadistic impulses, inhibited
by more or less conscious guilt feelings, are found. In most
women, violent impulses to castrate men, to ac(juire the penis,
e.g., by swallowing it, can be found. The inhibition of such im-
pulses, which continue to work in the unconscious, results not
only in social adjustment, but also in all kinds of disturbances
(as, for example, hysterical vomiting). The man’s sadistic phan-
tasies of hurting or piercing the woman in the sexual act lead to
various kinds of impotence if they arc inhibited by anxiety and
guilt feelings; if they are not, they may lead to perverse activities
or sex murder. Such unconscious desires as that of eating feces
can be found in a great many individuals, regardless of their
social class. Such psychoanalytic discoveries as that the over-
solicitude of a mother for hicr cliild or of a woman for her
husband corresponds to the intensity of her unconscious phan-
tasies of murder were highly inconvenient for the ideological
champions of “sacred mother love” or of the “sacrament of mar-
riage”; nevertheless, they are correct. Such examples could be
multiplied indefinitely; but let us return to our subject. These
contents of the unconscious were showfi to be remnants of in-
fantile attitudes toward parents, siblings, etc. In order to exist
and to fit into our culture, the children have to suppress these
impulses. The price ihey pay for it is the acquisition of a neurosis,
that is, a reduction of iheir ability to work and of their sexual
potency.

12 THE CLINICAL BASIS OF SEX-ECONOMIC CRITICISM

The finding of the antisocial nature of (lie unconscious was
correct; so was the finding of tlie necessity of instinctual re-
nunciation for tlie purpose of adjustment to social existence.
However, two facts arc at variance: On the one hand, the child
has to suppress its instincts in order to become capable of cul-
tural adjustment. On the other hand, it acquires, in this very
process, a neurosis whicli in turn makes it incapable of cultural
development and adjustment and in the end makes it antisocial.
In order to make natural instinctual gratification possible, one has
to eliminate the rcprc.ssion and to liberate the instincts. This is
tlie prerequisite of cure, although not as yet the cure itself as
Freud’s early statements would have it. What, then, should take
the place of instinctual repression? Certainly not the repressed
instincts themselves, because, according to psvchoanalvtic theory,
that would mean the impossibility of existing in this culture.

In many places in p.sycliuanalylic literature wc find the state-
ment that the uncovering of the unconscious, that is, the affirma-
tion of its existence, docs by no means imply an affirmation of the
corresponding action. The analyst lays down a law here which
applies for life as well as for the treatment session: “You are
allowed and supposed to mtj what you want; but that does not
mean that you also can do what you want.”

However, the responsible analyst was— and always is— con-
fronted with the question as to what is to happen to the pre-
viously repressed and now liberated instincts. The psychoanalytic
answer was: sublunation and rejection. Since, however, only the
fewest patients prove capable of sublimation to a sufficient de-
gree, the only other way out is renunciation through rejection
of the instinct. Repression comes to be replaced by rejection.
I’his demand was justified by the following formulation: The
child faced its instincts with a weak, undeveloped ego and tlius
had no other choice but that of repression; the adult faces his
instincts with a strong, adult ego which is capable of liandling
the instincts by way of rejection. Though this formulation con-
tradicts clinical experience, it became— and still is— the accepted

A CONTRADICTION IN FREUd's CULTURAL PHILOSOPHY 13

one. This point of view also dominates psychoanalytic pedagogy,
as represented, for example, by Anna Freud.

Since, according to this concept, the individual becomes capa-
ble of culture as a rexsult of instinctual renunciation instead of
repression, and since society is regarded as behaving like the
individual, it follows from this concept that culture is based on
instinctual renunciation.

The whole construction seems unobjectionable and enjoys the
approval not only of tlie majority of analysts but of the repre-
sentatives of an abstract concept of culture in general. This
substitution of renunciation and rejection for repression seems
to banish the ghost winch raised its tlireatening liead wlien Freud
confronted the world widi his early findings. These findings
showed unequivocally tliat sexual repression makes people not
only sick but also incapable of work and cultural achievement.
The whole world began to rage against Freud because of the
threat to morals and ethics, and reproaclied Freud with preach-
ing tlie “living out,” with threatening culture, etc. Freud’s alleged
antimoralism was one of th.e most potent weapons of his early
opponents. This ghost did not begin to vanish until the theory
of rejection was propounded; Freud’s earlier assurance that he
was affirming “culture,” that his discoveries constituted no threat
to it, had made little impression. This was shown bv the never-
ending talk about “pansexualism.” Then, after the new formula-
tion of rejection, the previous enmity was replaced by partial
acceptance. For just as long as the instincts were not lived out,
it did not make any difference, from a “cultural point of view,”
whether it was the mechanism of instinctual rejectic>n or that of
repression which played the Cerberus keeping the shadows of the
underworld from emerging to the surface. One was oven able to
register progress: that from the unconscious repression of evil to
the voluntary renunciation of instinctual gratification. Since
ethics does not consist in being asexual but, on the contrary, in
resisting sexual temptations, everybody could now agree with
everybody. Psychoanalysis, previously condemned, had now itself

THE CLINICAL BASIS OF SEX-ECONOMIC CRITICISM

become capable of culture— unfortunately by way of ‘renuncia-
tion of tlic instinct/' that is, the renunciation of its own theory
of the instincts.

I regret to liave to destroy some illusions. The whole system
contains a miscalculation which is easily demonstrable. Not by
any means in the sense that the psychoanalytic findings on which
these conclusions are based are incorrect. On the contrary, they
are quite coirect; only, they are incomplete, and many of tlic
formulations are abstract and thus distract from the real con-
clusions.

h) Instinctual gratification and instinctual renunciation,

Tliose German psychoanalysts who attempted a “Gleichsehal-
tung ’ of psychoanalysis tried to justify their unscientific behavior
by quotations from Freud s writings. They contain, in fact, formu-
lations which nullify the revolutionary character of clinical
psychoanalytic findings and which clearly demonstrate the con-
tradiction between the scientist and the middle-class cultural
philosopher in Freud. One such quotation runs:

It is a bad misunderstanding, explained only by ignorance, if people
say that psychoanalysis expects the cure ol neurotic illness from the
free ‘‘living oiiF of sexuality. On the contrary, the making conscious
of the repressed sexual desires makes possible their control [italics
mine. W.R.], a control which could not have been achieved by the
repression. It would be more correct to say that the analysis liberates
the neurotic from the shackles of his sexuality.

(Ges. Schriften, Bd. XJ, p. 217f. )

If, for example, the 17-year-old daughter of a National So-
cialist dignitary suffers from hysterical attacks as a result of a
repressed desire for sexual intercourse, this desire, in the psycho-
analytic treatment, will be recognized, to begin with, as an
incestuous desire, and will be rejected as such. So far so good.
But what happens to the sexual need? According to the above-
quoted formulation, the girl is "liberated” from the shackles of
her sexuality. Clinically, however, it looks like tliis: When the

A CONTOADICTION IN FREUd's (JULIURAL PHILOSOPHY 15

with the aid of the analysis, frees lierself from her father,
she liberates herself only from the toils of her incest wish, but
not from her sexuality as such. Freud's formulation neglects this
basic fact. The scientific dispute about the role of genitality took
its origin precisely from this clinical problem; it is the central
point of divergence between tlie sex-economic and the revised
psychoanalytic formulation. Freud’s formulation postulates a
renunciation on the part of the girl of all sexual life. In this
form, psychoanalysis is acceptable even to the Nazi dignitary and
becomes, in the hands of analysts like Muller-Braunschweig, an
instrument for the “breeding of the heroic human.” This form of
psychoanalysis, however, has nothing in common with that psy-
choanalysis contained in the books which Hitler had burned. The
latler kind of psychoanalysis, not hide-bound by reactionary
prejudice, states unequivocally that the girl can get well only if
she transfers the genital desires from the father to a friend with
whom she satisfies them. But just this is at variance with the total
Nazi ideology and inexorably brings up the whole (question of
the social sexual order. Because, in order to be able to live sex-
economically, it4s not siiilicicnt that the girl have a free genital
sexuality; she needs, in addition, an undisturbed room, proper
contraceptives, a friend who is capable of love, that is, not a
National Socialist with a sex-negative structure; she needs under-
standing parents and a scx-aifirmative soc*i:il atmosphere: these
needs arc all the greater the less she is in a financial situation
which would allow her to break through the soc?i al barriers of
adolescent sex life.

The replacement of sexual repression by renunciation or rejec-
tion would be a simple matter were it not for the fact that these
latter mechanisms arc also dependent on the economy of in-
stinctual life. Renunciation of the instinct is possible only under
definite sex-economic conditions. The same is true of sublimation.
Character-analytic experience show^s clearly that lasting renun-
ciation of a pathological or antisocial impulse is possible only
when the sexual economy is in order, that is, if there is no sexual
stasis which provides energy for the impulse which is to be re-

THE CLINICAL BASIS OF SEX-ECONOMIC CRITICISM

nounccd. An ordered scx-ecanomtj, however, is possible only in
the presence of such sexual gratification as corresponds to any
given age. Wliich means tliat an adult can give up infantile and
patliogenic desires onlv if he experiences lull genital gratification.
The perverse and neurotic modes of gratification against which
socictv should be protected aie in themselves only substitutes for
genital gratification and arise only if genital gratification is dis-
turbed or made impossible. This fact makes it clear that we
cannot speak of instinctual gratification or renunciation in
oral. We irnist ask concretely: tlie gratification oi what instinct,
the renunciation of what instinct? If analytic tlierapy sees its
job in eliminating repressions and not in preacliing morals, tben
it cun bring about the renunciation only of one kind of gratifica-
tion: that which does not corresj^ond to the respective age or
stage of development. Thus, it will bring a girl to the renuncia-
tion of her infantile fixation to her father by nothing else but
making this fixation conscious. But that does not imply a renun-
ciation of sexual desires as such, because the sexual energy con-
tinues to urge toward discharge. While it is easy to make her
give up her sexual desires for her father, she cannot be brought
to renounce her sexual gratification witli a boy her age except by
moralistic arguments; to do this, liowcver, is at variance with
therapeutic principles and possibilities of cure. On the other

hand, she can really dissolve her fixation to lier father only under
• ✓

one condition: when her sexuality finds another, normal object
and actual (gratification. Unless this is the case, the infantile
fixation is not dissolved, or there occurs a regression to other
infantile instinctual goals, and the basic problem continues to
exist.

The same is true of any case of neurotic disease. If a woman
is dissatisfied in her marriage, she will unconsciously reactivate
infantile sexual demands; these she can give up only if her sex-
uality finds another satisfactory outlet. True, the rejection of the
infantile sexual desires is a prerequisite for the establishment of a
normal sexuality; but the establishment of a normal sex life with
actual gratification is also an indispensable prerequisite for the

A CONTBADICTION IN FREUDS CULTURAL PHILOSOPHY 17

final relinquishing of the infantile instinctual goals. A sexual
pervert or criminal, such as a sex murderer, can be cured of his
pathological impulses only if he finds his way into a biologically
normal sex life. The alternative, thus, is not instinctual renuncia-
tion or instinctual living out, but renunciation of what impulses,
and gratification of what impulses?

In speaking abstractly of the evil nature of the repressed un-
conscious, one obscures the most fundamental facts not only of
the therapy and prevention of the neuroses, but of education as
well. Freud made tlie discovery that the unconscious of the
neurotics— that is, the vast majority of people in our civili/ation
—contains essentially infantile, cruel, antisocial impulses. This
finding is correct. But it obsemed another fact, the fact, namely,
that the unconscious also contains many impulses which repre-
sent natural biological demands, such as the sexual desire of
adolescents or of people tied down in ati unhappy marriage. Tlie
intensity of the later infantile and antisocial impulses derives, his-
torically and economically, from the non-gratification of these
natural demands; the dammed-up libidinal energy partly rein-
forces primitive infantile impulses, partly creates entirely new
ones, mostly of an antisocial nature, such as the desire for exhi-
bitionism or impulses to sex murder. Ethnological research shows
that such impulses are absent in primitive peoples up to a defi-
nite point of economic development and begin to make their
appearance only after social repression of normal love life has
become an established feature.

These antisocial impulses, which result from social repression
of normal sexuality and which have to be repressed because
society— rightly— does not allow them to be satisfied, these im-
pulses are considered biological facts by psychoanalysis. This
concept is closely related to that of Hirschfeld that exhibitionism
is due to special exhibitionistic hormones. This naive mechanistic
biologism is so dfficult to unmask because it serves a definite
function in our society: that of shifting the problem from the
sociological to the biological realm where nothing can be. done
about it.

18 TEIE CLINICAL BASIS OF SEX-ECONOMIC CRITICISM

There is sueli a thing as a sociologij of the unconscious and of
antisoeial sexuality, that is, a soeial history of the uneonscious
impulses, with regard to their iiiteusity as well as their contents.
Not only is repression itself a sociological phenomenon, but also
that which causes the repression. The study of the “partial im-
pulses” will have to take pointers from ethnological findings
such as the fact that in certain matriarchal societies there is
little if any of the anal phase of libidinal development which in
our society is considered a normal stage between the oral and
the genital phase. This is so because in these societies the chil-
dren are nursed until the third or fourth year when they imme-
diately enter a phase of intensive genital play activities.

The psyehoanalvtic concept of antisocial impulses is an abso-
lute one and thus leads to conclusions whicli are at variance with
the facts. If, on the other hand, one realizes the relative char-
acter of the antisocial impulses, one arrives at basically different
conclusions regarding not only p.sychotherapy but especially
sociology and sex-economy. The anal activities of a child of one
or two have nothing whatsoever to do with “social” or “anti-
social.” If, however, one adheres to the abstract view that these
anal impulses are antisocial, one will institute a regime designed
to make the child “capable of culture” as early as the 6th month
of life; the later result is exactly the opposite, namely, incapacity
for anal sublimation and the development of anal-neurotic dis-
turbances. The mechanistic concept of the absolute antithesis
between sexuality and culture makes even analytically trained
parents take measures against infantile masturbation, at least
in the form of “mild diversions.” As far as I know, none of the
writings of Anna Freud mention what in private conversation
she admitted to be an inevitable conclusion from psychoanalytic
findings: that infantile masturbation is a physiological mani-
festation and should not be inhibited. If one adheres to the con-
cept that that which is repressed and unconscious is also anti-
social, one will, for example, condemn the genital demands of
the adolescent. I’his is substantiated by such phrases as that

A CONTRADICTION IN FREUDS CULTURAL PHILOSOPHY 19

the “reality principle” requires the postponement of instinctual
gratification.

The fact that this reality principle is itself relative, that it is
determined by an authoritarian society and serves its purposes,
this decisive fact goes carefully umnentioned; to mention this,
they say, is “politics,” and science has nothing to do with politics.
They refuse to see the fact that not to mention it is also politics.
Such attitudes have seriously endangered analytic progress; not
only have they prevented the discovery of certain facts, but,
more important, they have hindered the practical application
of definitely established facts by misinterpreting them in terms
of conservative cultural concepts. Since psychoanalysis constantly
deals with the influences exerted upon the individual by society
as well as with judgments as to what is healthy or sick, social or
antisocial, and at the same time is unaware of the revolutionary
character of its method and findings, it moves around in a tragic
circle: it finds that sexual repression endangers culture and at
the same time that it is a necessary prerequisite of cultiue.

Let us summarize the facts which psychoanalysis has over-
looked and which are at variance with the psychoanalytic con-
cept of culture:

The unconscious itself is— quantitatively as well as qualita-
tively— socially determined;

The giving up of infantile and antisocial impulses presupposes
the gratification of the normal physiological sexual needs;

Sublimation, as the essential cultural achievement of the
psychic apparatus, is possible only in the absence of sexual re-
pression; in the adult, it applies only to the pregenital, but not
to the genital impulses;

Genital gratification— the decisive sex-economic factor in the
prevention of neuroses and establishment of social achievement—
is at variance, in every respect, with present-day laws and with
every patriarchal religion;

The elimination of sexual repression— introduced by psycho-
analysis as a therapy as well as a sociologically important factor—

20 THE CT-INICAL BASIS OF SEX-ECONOMIC CRITICISM

is stricUy at variance with all those cultural elements in our
society which are based just on this repression.

To the extent to which psychoanah'sis maii’.tains its affirma-
tion of patriarchal culture, it docs so at tlie expense of the \ cry
results of its own work. The conflict between the patriarchal cul-
tural concepts of tlie analytic investigators on the one hand
and the scientific results wliich militate against this culture on
tlie other hand is solved bv them in favor of the patriarchal
Weltanschauung. When psychoanalysis does not dare to accept
the consequences of its findings, it points to the allegedly non-
political (unpragmatic) character of science, while, in fact, every
step of psychoanalytic theory and practice deals with political
(pragmatic) issues.

If one investigates ecclesiastical, fascist and otlicr reactionary
ideologies for their unconscious content, one finds that they are
essentially defense reactions. Thev are formed for fear of the
unconscious inferno which ever\'one carries within himself.
From this, one could deduce a justification of an ascetic morality
only if the unconscious antisocial impulses were absolute and
biologically given; if that were so, the political reaction would be
correct, and any attempt to eliminate se.xual misery would be
senseless. Then, the patriarchal world could correctly point out
that the destruction of “the higher qualities,” “the central
values,” tlie “divine” and the “moral” in the human would lead
to sexual and ethical chaos. This is what people mean uncon-
sciously when they talk of “Kulturbolschewismus.” The revolu-
tionary movement— except for the sex-political wing— does not
know this connection; in fact, it often finds itself on the same
front with the political reaction when it comes to basic questions
of sex-economy. True, it turns against sex-economic principles
for difltcrent reasons than does the political reaction: it does not
know these principles and their implications. It also believes in
the biological and absolute nature of the antisocial impulses
and consequently in tlie necessity of moral inhibition and regu-
lation. It overlooks, like its opponents, the fact that the moral

SECONDARY IMPULSES AND MORAL REGULATION 21

regulation of instinctual life creates exactly what it pretends to
master: antisocial impulses.

Sex-economic investigation, on the other hand, shows that the
antisocial unconscious impulses— as far as they arc really anti-
social and not just regarded as such by the moralists— are a result
of moral regulation and will continue to exist as long as that
regulation exists. Sex-cconojnic regulation alone can eliminate
the antithesis between culture and nature; witli the elimination
of sexual repression, the perverse and antisocial impulses will also
be eliminated.

3. SECOND.ARY IMPULSES AND MORAL REGULATION

A very important contention in the struggle between so-called
“Kulturbolschewismus” and the fascist “antibolshevism” was that
the social revolution completely destroyed morals and would
lead to sexual chaos. This contention used to be countered by
the argument that, quite on the contrary, capitalism had pro-
duced the social chaos and the social revolution would un-
doubtedly establish security in social living. In tlie vSoviet Union,
the attempt to replace the authoritarian moral principle by non-
authoritarian self-regulation failed.

No more convincing was the attempt to compete with authori-
tarian society in pointing to one’s own “morality.” First of all,
one has to learn to understand why it is that the average person
is such a slave to the concept of morality, why to him the idea
of a “social revolution” is inevitably synonymous with the idea
of sexual and cultural chaos. This question has been already
answered, in part, by our study of fascist ideology: to the
unconscious of tlie average person, witli his sex-negative struc-
ture, “Kulturbolschewismus” means the “living out of sensual
sexuality.” To assume that it should be possible, in social revolu-
tion, to apply immediately, in a practical way, the findings of
sex-economy which would eliminate moral regulation, would be
completely to misunderstand sex-economic thinking.

As soon as a society assumes the ownership of the social

THE CLINICAL BASIS OF SEX-ECONOMIC CRITICISM

means of production and destroys the authoritarian apparatus,
it is inevitaldy confronted by tlie question as to how human
living should be regulated: morally or “freely." Quite obviously,
an immediate liberation of sexuality or iininediate elimination
of moral norms and moral regulation is out of the question. We
know that people, their structure being what it is today, are
incapable of self-regulation; they ni;iy be able to establish eco-
nomic democracy innnediatcly, but not a rational, self-governing
societv. This is, after all, what Lenin meant when he said that

the state could disappear only gradually. If one wants to elimi-
nate moral reguhition and to replace it by self-regulation, one
has to know to what extent the old, nioriil regulation was in-
dispensable and to what extent it was harmful, individually and
sociidly.

The moral point of view of the political reaction is that of an
absolute antithesis between biological impulse and social interest.
Based on this antithesis, the reaction points to the necessity of
moral regulation; for, tlicv say, were one to “eliminate morals,”
tlie “animal instincts” would gain the upper hand and this would
“lead to chaos.” It is evident that tlie formula of the threatening
social chaos is nothing but the fear of human instincts. Are
morals necessary, then? Yes, since antisocial impulses actually
do endanger social living. This being so, how would it be possible
to abolish moral regulation?

This question cannot be answered without first considering
the following sex-economic findings. Moral regulation represses
and keeps from gratification the natural vegetative needs. This
results in secondary, pathologically antisocial impulses. These,
in turn, have to be inhibited of necessity. Thus, morality does
not owe its existence to the necessity of inhibiting antisocial tend-
encies. It developed, in primitive society, when a certain upper
class with economic superiority began to attain power; for eco-
nomic reasons, this class had an interest in suppressing the natural
needs, though they, in themselves, in no way disturbed soci-
ality.® Moral regulation gained a reason for its existence the
3 Cf. Reich, Einbruch der Sexualmoral, 1935.

SECONDABY IMPULSES AND MORAT. REGULATION 23

moment when that which it produced actualhj began to endanger
social life. For example, the suppression of the natural gratifica-
tion of hunger led to tlicft; tins in turn necessitated the moral
condemnation of theft.

Thus, in any discussion as to whether morals are necessary or
should be abolished, wliether one set of morals should be re-
placed by another, whether, finally, moral regulation should be
replaced by self-rcgulation—in such a discussion we will not
get one step farther unless we distinguish the natural biological
impulses from the secondary antisocial impulses which owe their
existence to compulsive morals. The unconscious of the human in
an authoritarian society is filled with both kinds of impulses. If
one suppresses— as one needs must— the antisocial impulses, the
natural biological impulses suffer the same fate. While to the
political reaction the concept of impulses and that of “anti-
social” are one and the same thing, the differentiation just men-
tioned points a way out of the dilemma.

As long as the alteration of human structure has not succeeded
to such an extent that the natural regulation of the vegetative
energies automatically excludes any antisocial tetjdency, so long
is it impossible to abolish moral regulation. Tins process of
alteration of structure is bound to take a \erv long time. The
elimination of moral regulation and its displacement by sex-
economic regulation will be possible only to the degree to which
the realm of the natural biological impulses is extended at the
expense of the secondary antisocial impulses. That, and how, this
takes place we know with certainty from character-analytic expe-
rience with the individual patient. Here, we see liow the patient
demobilizes his moral compulsions only to the extent to which he
regains his natural sexuality. With the loss of moral regulation
by his conscience he also loses his antisociality; he develops a
natural morality, as contrasted with a compulsive one, to the
same extent that he becomes geni tally healthy.

Thus, the coming social revolution— if it knows what it is doing
—will not suddenly abolish moral regulation. It will first alter the
structure of people in such a manner that they become capable

24 THE CLINICAL BASIS OF SEX-ECONOMIC CRITICISM

of social living and working willioiit authority and moral pres-
sure, out of their own independence and really voluntary disci-
pline which cannot l)c imposed from outside. True, in such a
transitory period, moral regulation will apply only to the anti-
social impulses. Such things as the piuiislimcrtt of the seduction
of children by adults will not be abolislied as long as the struc-
ture of the masses of adults contains the impulse to seduce chil-
dren. To this extent, conditions after tlie revolution would seem
to be identical with those in an aiitlioritarian society. The dif-
ference— and it is an important one— between the two societies,
however, would be that a non-authoritarian society would not put
any obstacles in the path of the gratification of the natural needs.
It would, for example, not only not prolhbit a love relationship
between two adolescents; it would give it its full protection and
help. It would, for example, not 0!ily not prohibit infantile
masturbation; it would deal severely with any adult who would
prevent the child from developing its natural sexuality.

However, we should guard against an absolute and rigid con-
cept of the ‘\sexual impulse.” The secondary impulse, too, is
determined not only by its goal, but also by tlie period at which
it develops and by the conditions under which it strives for grati-
fication. One and the same manifestation mav be natural in one

case and at a certain period, antisocial and unnatural in another
case or at another period. To illustrate: If a child of one or two
wets the bed or plays with its feces, this is a natural phase in its
pregenital development. At this period, punishing the child for
these impulses is an action which itself deserves the most severe
punishment. If, however, the same individual at the age of 14
were to eat its feces or play with them, this would be a secondary,
antisocial, pathological impulse. The individual should not be
punished but hospitalized for treatment. But in a free society,
this would not be sufficient. Rather, the most important task of
society would be that of changing education in such a manner
that such pathological impulses would not develop at all.

To take another example. If a boy of 15 were to develop a love
relationship with a girl of 13, a free society not only would not

SEX-ECONOMIC “mORALITY”

iiitcrfere, it would affirm and protect it. If, liowcver, the boy of
15 tried to seduce little mils of 3 for sexual caiiis or tried to force
a girl of his age into a sexual relationslup, this would be con-
sidered antisociid. It would indicate tluit tlie boy’s healthy im-
pulse to establish ii normal sex relationslu'p with a girl his age
was inhibited. In summarv one would say that in tlie transition
period from an authoritarian to a free society, tlie rule should be:
Moral regulation for secondary, antisocial impulses, and sex-
economic self-regulation for natural biological needs. The goal is
tliat of increasingly putting out of function the secondary im-
pulses and with them moral compulsion, and of replacing them
completely by sex-economic sedf-regulation.

These formulations regarding the secondary impulses could
easily be misinterpreted by moralists and other pathological
people in such a way as to be made to serve their own purposes.
But before long it should be possible to make so clear the differ-
ence between natural and secondary impulses that the authori-
tarian moral hypocrisy will find it impossible to sneak again into
human sex life by a back door. The existence of severe moral
tenets always proves, and always has, that the biological needs,
particularly the sexual needs, are not being gratified. Every kind
of moral regulation is per sc sex-negative, condemns or denies
the natural sexual needs. Any kind of moralism is life-negative,
and the most important task of a free society is that of making
possible for its members the satisfaction of their natural needs.

Sex-econom)" has as its aim ‘moral behavior” no less than does
moral regulation. Onlv, in sex-economy, “morality” means an
altogether different tiling: not something which is diametrically
opposed to nature, but a complete harmony of nature and culture.
Sex-economy fights moral regulation because moral regulation
produces just wliat it attempts to fight: antisocial impulses. Sex-
economy docs not fight a morality which is life-affirmative.

4. SEX-ECONOMIC “mORALITy”

Everywhere in the world people are fighting for a new regula-
tion of social life. In tliis fight they are hampered not only by the

26 THE CLINICAL BASIS OF SEX-ECONOMIC CRITICISM

most diflBcult economic and social conditions; tliey are also in-
hibited, confused and endangered by their own biopsychic struc-
ture wliich is basically the same as that of the veiy people against
whom they fight. The goal of a cultural revolution is the develop-
ment of people with a structure which would make them capa-
ble of self-regulation. Those who today fight for this goal often
live according to principles which correspond to this goal; but,
they are no more than “principles.” We have to be quite clear
about the fact that today there are no jicople with a solid, fully
developed sex-affirmative structure, for all of us have gone
tlirough an authoritarian, leligious, sex-negative educational ma-
chine. Nevertheless, in shaping our personal lives, we achieve an
attitude which could be called se.x-cconomic. Some succeed better
in achieving this alteration of structure, others less well. If one
has lived and worked for a long time with industrial workers, one
knows tliat among them a bit of the future sex-economic regula-
tion is occasionally anticipated.

A few examples may show what “sex-economic morality” is and
how it anticipates the “morality of the future.” The fact should
be emphasized that, in living thus, we do not form an island by
any means; what enables us to have such concepts and to live
according to them is the fact that such inodes of living and such
new “moral principles” are part of a general developmental
process in society, a process which takes place entirely inde-
pendently of the views of this or that individual or political or
cultural group.

Fifteen or twenty years ago, it was a disgrace for an unmarried
girl not to be a virgin. Today the girls of all social circles and
strata— some more, some less, some more clcsarly, some more
vaguely— have begun to develop the view that it is a disgrace still
to be a virgin at the age of 1 8, 20 or 22.

Not long ago, it was considered a moral crime, calling for
drastic punishment, when a couple who intended to be married
became sexually acquainted with each other beforehand. Today,
quite spontaneously, and in spite of the influence of church,
scholastic medic-ine and puritanical minds, tlie view becomes

SEX-ECONOMIC “mORAUTy’

more and more general that it is mihygienic, imprudent and
possibly disastrous if two people bind themselves without having
first convinced themselves that they are matched in the basis of
their life together, tliut is, in their sexual life.

Extramarital sexual intereourse, looked upon as a vice a few
years ago and eonsidered “nioral turpitude” before llie law, today
(1936) has become a matter of course, and a vital necessity, for
example with the youth among workers and the middle classes
of Germany.

A few years ago, the idea that a girl of 15 or 16— though she be
sexually mature— had a boy friend seemed absurd; today it has
already become a matter for serious discussion; in a few more
years it will be as much a matter of course as is today tlie right
of tlie unmarried woman to have a sexual partner. A hmidred
years from now, such demands as that women teachers should
have no sex life will provoke the same incredulous smile as does
today mention of the times when men put chastity belts on their
women. Just as ridiculous will appear what today still is an
almost general ideology; that tire man has to seduce a woman,
while a woman is not supposed to seduce a n)an.

It is stiU far from being a matter of course that one does not
engage in sexual intereourse if the sexual partner does not want
to. The concept of “marital duty” has legal backing and legal
consequences. Nevertheless, in our sex hygiene clinics and medi-
cal practice we see that a contrasting attitude makes itself felt:
the attitude that, notwithstanding social and legal ideology, a
man does not have intercourse with his partner when she does
not wish it; more, when she is not genitally aroused. It still is
generally considered a “natural” fact, however, that women
suffer the sexual act without any inner participation. It is part of
natural morality not to have sexual intercourse unless both are
in full genital readiness; this eliminates the masculine ideology
of rape and the attitude of the woman that she has to be seduced
or mildly raped.

The attitude is still quite common that one should jealously
watch over one’s partner’s fidelity. Newspaper stories and suicide

28 THE CLINICAL BASIS OF SEX-ECONOMIC CRITICISM

statistics eloquently show how rotten our society is in this respect.
Nevertheless, gradually the insight gains ground that nobody has
the right to prohibit his or her partner from entering a temporary
or lasting sexual relationship with somebody else. He has only
the right either to withdraw or to win the partner back. This
attitude, which is entirely in accordance with sex-economic
findings, has notliing to do with the hyper-radical idea that one
should not be jealous at all, that “it doesn’t make any difference”
if the partner enters anotlun* relationship. It is absolutely natural
to suffer pain at the thought that a heloved partner embraces
somebody else. This natural jcaloimj has to be strictly distin-
guished from possessive jealousy. It is natural not to want a be-
loved partner in somebody else s arms; but it is equally unnatural
if— no longer liaving sexual intercourse oneself with one^s partner,
as in a marriage or other relationship of long duration— one were
to forbid the partner another relationship.

These few examples may suffice. Complicated as the personal
and particularly tlie sexual life of people is today, it would
regulate itself with the greatest simplicity if they were able fully
to appreciate the pleasure in life. The essence of sex-economic
regulation lies in the avoidance of any absolute norms or pre-
cepts and in the recognition of the will to life and pleasure in
living as the regulators of social life. The fact that today, due to
the disordered liurnan structure, this recognition is reduced to a
minimum does not speak against the principle of self-regulation;
on the contrary, it speaks against the moral regulation which has
created this pathological structure.

There are two kinds of “moralitv,” but onlv one kind of moral
regulation. That kind of “morality” which everybody acknowl-
edges and affirms as a matter of course (not to rape, not to
murder, etc. ) can be established only on the basis of full gratifi-
cation of the natural needs. But tlie other kind of “morality”
which we refute ( sexual abstinence for children and adolescents,
compulsory marital fidelity, etc.) is in itself pathological and
creates the very chaos which it professes to control. It is the
arch-enemy of natural morality.

SEX-Ef:ONOMIC “MO«AI,rrY”

There are people who say that sex-economic living will destroy
die family. They babble about die “sexual chaos” which would re-
sult from a healthy love life, and the masses are impressed by them
because they are professors or the authors of best-sellers. One has
to know what one is talking about. It is a matter, first of all, of
eliminating the economic enslavement of women and children.
And their anihoritarian enslavement. Not until tliat is done will
die husband love his wife, the wife the husband, and will parents
and children love each otlier. Thev will no longer have anv reason
to hate each other. What wc want to destroy is not the family,
but the hatred which the faniil)" creates, the coercion, though it
may take on the outward appearance of “love.” If familial love
is that great human possession it is made out to be, it will have
to prove itself. If a dog which is chained to the house does not
run away, nobody will, for this reason, call him a faitliful com-
panion. No sensible person will talk of love when a man cohabits
with a woman who is bound hand and foot. No lialf-way decent
man will be proud of the love of a woman x\’hom he buys by
supporting her or by power. No decent man v'ill take love which
is not given freely. Comjiulsivc morality as exemplified in mari-
tal duty and familial a'lithority is the morality of cowardly and
impotent individuals who are incapable of c.xperiencing thnmgh
natural love capacity what they trv to obtain in vain with the
aid of the police and marriage laws.

These people try to put all humanity into their own strait-
jacket because they are incapable of tolerating natural sexuality
in others. It annoys them and fills them with envy, because they
themselves would like to live that w'ay and cannot. Far be it from
us to force anybody to give up the familial life if he wants it;
on the otlicr hand, we do not want to let anybody force into it
those who do not want it. Let him who can li\'e in monogamy all
his life and wants to, do so; he who cannot cu) it, who is going
to be ruined by it, should have the opportunity to arrange his life
dififerently. But if one w'ants to establish a “new kind of life” one
has to know the contradictions inherent in the old one.

Chapter II

THE FAILURE OF CONSERVATIVE
SEXUAL REFORM

Sexual reform aims to eliminate conditions in sexual life which,
in the last analysis, are rooted in economic conditions and which
express themselves in psychic illness. In authoritarian society, the
conflict between a morality which is imposed on tlie total society
by a minority in the interests of maintaining its power, on the one
hand, and the sexual needs of the individual on the other, leads
to a crisis which—within the existing social framework— is in-
soluble. Never in all the history of mankind, however, has tliis
conflict led to such crass and cruel consequences as during the
past three decades. Thus, there never was any other period dur-
ing which sexual reform was so much discussed and written
about. Nor any other during which all attempts at sexual reform
failed as thoroughly as in this “age of technic and science.’' The
contrast between the devitalizing sexual misery and the enormous
progress in sexology is a corollary to that other contrast between
the economic misery of the working masses and the enormous
technical advances of our industrial age. Or another contrast—
which is again only seemingly paradoxical— that in this age of
aseptic operations and highly developed surgery about 20,000
women in Germany died annually from abortions between 1920
and 1932 and that 75,000 women annually were seriously ill
from infections after abortions. Or that, with increasing rationali-
zation of production, more and more industrial workers were
unemployed, their families physically and morally ruined. Tliis
contrast, far from being senseless, is quite intelligible if one does
not try to comprehend it apart from the economic and social
structure which creates it. We will have to show that sexual

THE FAILUEE OF CONSEUVATIVE SEXUAL HEFORM 31

misery as well as the impossibility of solving the sexual problem
are botli an integral part of tlie social order to which they owe
their existence.

The sex-reform struggles are part of the cultural struggle in
general. The Liberal, like Norman Ilaire, fights willi his sexual
reform against only one individual defect of this society, witliout
wanting to criticize it otherwise. The Socialist, the “Reformist,”
attempts, by introducing sexual reforms, also to introduce a bit
of sociahsm into the existing society. He ti'ies to reverse tlie
process of development by having the sexual reform take place
before an alteration of the economic structure.

The reactionary will never understand that sexual misery is an
integral part of the social order whicli he defends. He sees its
cause either in human sinfulness, in some supernatural will or a
no less mysterious will to suffer, or he believes that sexual misery
exists simply because people do not follow his ascetic and monog-
amous demands. He cannot be expected to admit that he is an
accomplice in the very thing which he himself, piously tliough
perhaps honestly, tries to abolish with his reforms. The conse-
quences of such an admission— even to himself— might shake his
economic basis, the \'ery basis from which he undertakes his
reforms.

Conservative sexual reform has for decades been attempting
to alleviate sexual misery. The problems of prostitution and
venereal disease, of sexual misery, abortion and sexual murders,
as well as the problem of the neuroses, are always in the center of
public interest. Not one of the measures taken has so much as
touched the prevailing sexual misery. More than that, what
proposals for reform arc made arc always a few steps behind the
actual changes which take place in tlie relations between the
sexes. The decrease in marriages, the increase in divorces and
adultery force a discussion of inairiage reform; extramarital sexual
relations become more and more a recognized fact, tlie views of
ethically oriented sexologists notwithstanding; sexual intercourse
among large sections of tlie youth between 15 and 18 is a general
phenomenon; this at a time when the sexual reform movement

32 THE FAILURE OF CONSERVATIVE SEXUAL REFORM

Still debates the question wliether sexual abstinence of adolescents
should be continued beyond the age of 20, or the question
whether masturbation is to be considered a normal manifestation.
“Criminal” abortion and the use of contraceptives become more
and more widespread, while the sexual reform movement de-
bates whether, in addition to medical reasons, social factors
should also be considered as indication for abortion.

So we see that the concrelc changes in sex life are always far
ahead of the negligible efforts of the sex reformers. This lag in
tlie reform movement indicates tluit tlierc is something basically
wrong with these reform efforts; there is an inner contradiction
which works like a brake mechanism and dooms all effort to
become fruitless.

We are confronted with the task of finding out the hidden
meaning of this fiasco of conservative sex reform. We will have
to find out what links this kind of sex reform and its failure with
the authoritarian social order. The connections are by no means
simple. In particular, the problem of the formation of sexual
ideologies is so complex as to require a special study.^ Here, only
a sector of the whole problem will be trcc.led. We find here an
interlacing of the following factors:

1. The institution of marriage as the brake on sexual reform.

2. The authoritarian family as the educational apparatus.

3. The demand for sexual abstinence of youth as the logical
measure— from an authoritarian standpoint— for education to life-
long, monogamous marriage and the authoritarian family.

4. The contradiction between conservative sexual reform and
conservative marriage ideology.

Many of these connections have gone unnoticed, mainly be-
cause the critics of sexual reform concentrated their attention on
the external forms of sex life (housing, abortion, marriage laws,
etc.) while the sexual needs, mechanisms and experiences were
largely overlooked. Little is to be added to this sociological
criticism which in Europe came from such men as Hodann,

i Cf. Her Einbrucii der Sexualmoral and MASSENrsYciioLOciE des Faschismus.

THE FAILURE OF CONSERVATIVE SEXUAL REFORM 33

Hirschfeld, Brupbacher, Wolff and which was higlilighted by die
sexual revolution in Russia between 1918 and 192L-
However, an evaluation of the psychic and cultural results of
the authoritarian sexual order for the sexual economy of the
individual and of society presupposes a knowledge of the psychic
and somatic mechanisms of scxualitv.

Our medical criticism, which has to be added to the sociologi-
cal one, is based on character-analytic therapeutic experience and
on the results of orgasm research.

- for cxanij)lc, the works of (icn.ss on llic prohicni of ahoiiion in Russia;
Wolfsolin; “Soziolo^ie tier Khc untl Faniilir”; lialkis: Die scxucllc Revolulion in
del Sovjet'Union.’*

Chapter III

THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE AS
THE BASIS OF CONTRADICTIONS IN
SEXUAL LIFE

The guiding interest in the sex reform movement is tliat of
marital morality. Behind this, we have the conservative institu-
tion of marriage, and this in turn is firmly based on economie
interests. The morality of marriage is tlie ultimate ideological
exponent of economic factors in tlie ideological superstructure of
society and as such permeates the thinking and acting of every
conservative sex reformer and makes an actual sex reform im-
possible.

What is tlie connection between economic factors and moralit)^
of marriage? An immediate result of economic interests is the
interest in tlie wximan’s premarital chastity and marital fidelity.
The German sex hygienist, Gruber, was well aware of this ulti-
mate and decisive motive when he wrote:

We have to cultivate woman’s chastity as the highest national pos-
session, for it is the only safe guarantee that we really are going to be
the lathers of our children, that wc work and labor for our own flesh
and blood. Without this guarantee there is no possibility of a secure
family life, this indispensable basis for the welfare of the nation. This,
and not masculine sellishness, is the reason why the law and morals
make stricter demands on the woman than on the man with regard to
premarital chastity and to marital fidelity. Freedom on her part
involves much more serious conscqiu'nces than freedom on the part
of the man.

(Hygiene des Gescheeciitslebens, 53 - 54 . ed., p. 146 - 147 )

Through the coupling of the inheritance laws with procreation,

THE BASIS OF CONTRADICTIONS IN SEXUAL LIFE 35

the problem of marriage and the problem of sexuality have almost
become one; the sexual union of two people is no longer a matter
of sexuality. Extramarital chastity and marital fidelity on the part
of the woman cannot be maintained for long without a consid-
erable degree of sexual repression; from that follows the demand
for chastity on the part of the girl. Originally— and this is still the
case in certain primitive societies— the girl was free to live her
own sexual life until marriage; only upon marriage did she be-
come obligated to extramarital chastity.^ In our society, par-
ticularly during the last decade of the 19th century, virginity
became an absolute prerequisite of marriage. Premarital chastity
and strict fidelity of the married woman became the two corner-
stones of reactionary sex morality, which, by creating a sex-
negative structure, help to support the authoritarian marriage
and family.

So far, this ideology is the logical expression of economic
interests. But here we see the contradiction in the process. The
demand of premarital chastity deprives the male youth of love
objects. This creates conditions which, though not intended by
tlie existing social order, are inevitably a part of its sexual regime:
monogamous marriage gives rise to adultery, and the chastity
of the girls gives rise to prostitution. Adultery and prostitution
are part and parcel of the double sexual morality which allows to
tlie man, in marriage as well as before, what the woman, for
economic reasons, must be denied. Due to the natural demands
of sexuality, however, a strict sexual morality results in exactly
the opposite of that which is intended. Immorality in the reac-
tionary sense, that is, adultery and extramarital sex relations,
grow into grotesque social phenomena: sexual perversion on the
one hand, and mercenary sexuality, inside and outside of mar-
riage, on the other. The mercenary character of sexual activity
outside of marriage of necessity ruins the tender relationships
between the sexes, most crassly in prostitution. The well-brought-
up young man will, for example, split his sexuality. He will satisfy

1 C/. Bryk, "Ncgcreros” (Marcus and Webers, p. 77); Ploss-Baricls, Das Weib, and
especially Malinowski, The Sexual Life of Savages.

36 THE BASIS OF CONTRADICTTONS IN SEXUAL LIFE

his sensuality with a girl of the “lower classes” while he bestows
his affection and respect on a girl of his own social circles. This
dissociation of love life and the linking of sexuality with money
result in a complete degradation and brutalization of love life.
One of the results is the widespread occurrence of venereal
disease, which is also an essential though unintended part of the
conservative sexual order. The fight against prostitution, extra-
marital sexual intercourse and x encreal disease is carried on under
the banner of “abstinence,” corresponding to tlie concept that
sexual intercourse is moral only in marriage; as a seeming proof
of the evilness of extramarital sexual activity, they point to its
alleged dangerousness.

The reactionary authors have to admit themselves that the
insistence on sexual abstinence is not an efficient weapon against
venereal disease. Though the)' are aware of tlie fact that marital
morals are a blind alley, they sec no way out of it. True, venereal
diseases are caused by liacilli, but what they owe their wide.spread
occurrence to is the degradation of extramarital sex life which
is nothing but tlie counterpart of the socially sanctioned marital
relation.ship. This is a contradiction to which the reactionary
sexologist— as long as he wants to remain a part of his milieu-
must, willy-nilly, give his ideological support.

In the question of abortion, one sees similar conflicts between
the facts on the one hand and the demands which are made in
support of marital morals and the institution of mamage on the
other hand. One of the common arguments against the legaliza-
tion of abortion is a ‘niorar’ one. After all, they say, the laws
against abortion put the brakes on what otherwise might become
an “altogether uninhibited sex life.” They want to achieve an
increased birthrate and actually achieve the opposite: a steadily
declining birthrate. (The legalization of abortion in Soviet Russia
did not lead to a decline of the birthrate, but, together with the
attendant social measures, to an cnonnous increase). \Vliy this
concern for an increased birtlirate?

It would be erroneous to assume that the wish for a large
industrial reserve army is tlie motive here. That may have been

THE BASIS OF CONTRADICTIONS IN SEXUAL LIFE

so when the unemployment of a definite, relatively small number
of workers made it possible to keep down wage levels. But times
have changed. Tlie mass unemployment which has become char-
acteristic of our times has made tliis motive unimportant. The
immediate economic motives for the obstruction of rational con-
traceptive measures are insignificant compared with tlie ideologi-
cal motives (which, it is true, also have their root, in the last
analysis, in economic interests ) . The central motive in punishing
abortion is the fear of the possible consequences of abolishing it,
the fear of what it might do to “morality.” If one were to legalize
abortion, tlie legalization would apply not only in the case of
married, but also of unmarried women. But that implies con-
doning extramarital relationships and relinquishing the moral
compulsion to marry a girl if she has become pregnant. And that
means undermining the institution of marriage. In spite of all the
conflicting facts of sexual life, from an ideological point of view
marital morality must be upheld. Why? Because it is the back-
bone of the autlioritarian family, and this in turn is the place
where authoritarian ideology and human structure are formed.

This is something which thus far has been largely overlooked
in the discussion of the abortion problem. Some people might
point out the possibility of legalizing abortion only for married
but not for unmarried women. In this way, they might say, the
interests of marriage would be safeguarded. This objection would
be valid were it not for a certain piece of sexual ideology.
According to conventional sex morality, the sexual act is not
supposed to be an act of sexual pleasure and gratification apart
from reproduction. OflScial sanctioning of die sexual act apart
from reproduction would mean throwing overboard all oflicially
accepted secular and ecclesiastical concepts of sexuality. Thus,
for example, vvrites Max Marcuse in his compendium Die Ehe
(in the chapter on “Contraception in Marriage”):

Should it become possible to sterilize women temporarily at will by
internal medication, the most urgent task would be that of working
out a method of distribution of these drugs which would make them

38 THE BASIS OF CONTEADICTIONS IN SEXUAL LIFE

available where indicated for reasons of hygiene and at the same time
safeguard against the enormous danger presented by them to sexual
order and morality, more, to life and culture in general.

What one should add, of course, is the danger to authoritarian
life and culture. German fascism, between 1933 and 1935, took
into account this “danger” which the sex relormcr Marcuse had
formulated in 1927: About 1,500 sterilizations, though they con-
tributed nothing to hygiene, averted this “enormous danger to
sexual order and morality, life and culture.” What is really meant
by this “enormous danger” is the danger of separating sexuality
and procreation.

Simple arithmetic shows what all this really means. No reason-
able sex reformer can expect a poor woman to bear more than,
say, five children. The authorities in sexology notv,athstanding,
man is by nature so constituted that he feels sexual excitation and
wants sexual gratification though he may not have a marriage
certificate, and that he feels the sexual urge on an ax'erage of
every few days. That means, if he lives according to his biological
needs and not according to conventional sexual morality, he has
sexual intercourse from 3 to 4 thousand times between the ages
of 14 and 50. Thus, if Marcuse were interested only in the preser-
vation of the race, he would have to advocate a law according to
which the woman may use contraceptives 'in 2,995 cases if only
she does not use them the other five times, or as manv times as is
necessary to produce five children.

But the sex reformer is in reality not concerned about these
“five” acts of reproduction. He is haunted by the fear that people,
with the sanction of the authorities, might not only wish for 3,000
pleasurable sexual acts, but actually engage in them. Why is he
haunted by this fear? For several reasons.

1. Because the institution of marriage is not geared to these
natmal facts and at the same time must be preserved as the
cornerstone of the factory of autlioritarian ideology, the family.

2. Because he could no longer evade the problem of adolescent

THE BASIS OF CONTRADICTIONS IN SEXUAL LIFE 39

sexuality, a problem which today he slays with such slogans as
“abstinence” or “sexual enlightenment.”

3. Because his theory of the monogamous constitution of the
woman, or of people in general, would collapse completely in the
face of biological and physiological facts.

4. Because he would inevitably get into serious conflicts with
the church. These conflicts he can avoid onlv as long as he— tike
Van de Velde in his book. Ideal Marriage— propagates erotization
within marriage, while at the same time carefully pointing out
that his proposals are not at variance with ecclesiastical dogmata.

The ideology of conventional morality is a cornerstone of the
authoritarian institution of marriage; it is at variance with sexual
gratification and presupposes a sex-negative attitude. From this
institution of marriage stems the impossibility of solving the
problem of abortion.

Chapter IV

THE INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATIVE
SEXUAL MORALITY

1. “objective, non-political” science

The characteristic of conservative sexual ideology is the nega-
tion and degradation of sexuality which, in authoritarian society,
is expressed in the process of sexual repression. It matters little
what sexual needs are repressed, how far-reaching the repiession
is and what its results are in the individual case. What interests
us here is the means employed in this process by “public opinion,”
an important part of which is formed by conservative sexology,
and what its results are in general.

The most important exponent of the ideological atmosphere
is conservative sexology. This will be shown in detail in discussing
the problems of marriage and of adolescent sexuality; here we
want only to cite some typical illustrations of the moralistically
prejudiced attitude of a sexology which pretends to be objective.

In Marcuses Handworterbuch der Sexualwissenschaft, a
work which is undoubtedly representative of official sexology,
Timerding writes the following:

The whole concept of sexuality has always been determined by a
general ethical attitude. Suggestions for reform are almost always
justified by ethical principles (p. 710).

The real importance of the ethical viewpoint in sexology lies in the
fact that it teaches one to view sexual manifestations in the larger
framework of total personality development and the social order
(p. 712).

As we know, what is meant by social order is the reactionary
social order, and by personality development is meant the de-

“objective, non-political” science 41

velopment of a personality which is capable of adjusting to that
order. Every reactionary social morality is of necessity sex-nega-
tive, no matter what concessions it may make in view of die
actualities of sexual life, no matter the extent to which the sex
life that the ruling classes lead and foster deviates from its princi-
ples. Due to their inner contradictions, many authors arrive at
formulations which are at variance with the social atmosphere.
In a practical sense, however, this scientific counterweight never
has any eflFect; there is never any action which would transgress
the confines set up by reactionary society. The result is incon-
sistency, often even absurdity. Thus, Wiese writes in Marcuse s

11 ANDWORTERBUCH :

Over and above religious asceticism, tliere is, particularly in our
times, much asceticism, that is, abstinence on principle, the motives
of which stem from philosophy, ethics, practical social considerations,
weak eroticism, psychic or physical, an inclination toward spiritualism,
or a mixture of alTof these with inherited religious instincts. Often
one thinks one is capable of lifting human intercourse to a higher plane
only under conditions of abstinence. . . . This modern asceticism . . .
is only rarely of the same high value as genuine religious asceticism.
It is the result of satiation or a low vitality which is incapable of
tolerating the pathos or the variety of sensuality.

With regard to any form or degree of abstinence, the observation is
valid that a strong natural instinct cannot be eliminated; it can only
be diverted and altered. Abstinence “represses” the sexual drive. Much
as one has to guard against the exaggerations of FVeud’s school, one
has to acknowledge the validity of the theory of the repression of the
sexual instinct through abstinence. Much fanaticism, queemess, hatred
and unchastity of phantasy life may result from abstinence.

A natural instinct for abstinence (not to be confused with a tempo-
rary decrease of the urge or its decrease with advancing age) does
not exist in the healthy human. Asceticism is essentially of social, not
biological origin. Occasionally, it is an adaptation to unnatural living
conditions, occasionally a pathological ideology.

On the whole, these are correct statements. But any possible
practical consequences are precluded by such things as a dis-

42 THE INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATIVE SEXUAL MORALITY

tinction between religious asceticism and asceticism of another
kind; this distinction obscures the fact that religious asceticism,
too, springs from an “inclination toward mysticism'" and not from
‘‘inherited religious instincts.” By postulating “religious instincts,”
Wiese leaves a backdoor open through which asceticism can
sneak in again after having thrown it out by the correct finding
that it is of social origin and that in the healthy human there is
no such thing as a “natural instinct for abstinence.”

Another moralistic backdoor of official sexology is the talk of
the “lifting to a higher spiritual plane” of sexual relations. What
happened is this: Originally, one condemned sensuality; but the
repressed forces returned, in all kinds of pathological forms.
What was to be done with these forces which now, even more
than before, conflicted with a “moral,” i.e., ascetic and chaste way
of living? Only one thing was left: “lifting sexuality to a higher
spiritual plane.” This slogan of a large sector of the sex reform
movement means, no matter what vague phrases are used, some-
thing very concrete: nothing but renewed repression and inhibi-
tion of sexuality.

The mixture of factual findings aiid sexual morality, so typical
of conservative sexology, results in the most absurd statements.
Thus, Timerding writes:

If one denies to the unmarried woman the right to love, one also
has to demand premarital sexual abstinence of the man. True, com-
plete premarital chastity, if it could he made a fact, would be the best
ffmrantee for the continuation of society and would relieve the indi-
vidual of much suffering. If, however, this demand remains an ordeal,
achieved only in rare instances [italics mine, W.R.], very little is
achieved. The ideal of chastity should become a norm of individual
ethics; this, however, becomes more and more unlikely, especially as
the chances of getting married soon after sexual maturity become
increasingly poor. As long as the demand for chastity is only a demand
of social ethics, for the protection of the family, the individual is apt
to shake it off as nothing but an annoying compulsion.

It is significant that this concept has failed completely in the face
of modern living and that in practice it has almost become a farce.

'‘objective, non-poijtical” science

We have here the following inconsistencies: If the woman is
supposed to live in premarital abstinence, wliy not the man?
Correct. The establishment of the ideal of chastity as a norm of
individual ethics becomes more and more unlikely. Correct.
Nevertheless, the ideal of chastity “should” be established, even
tliough “this concept has failed completely . . . and . . . has
become a farce.” That “premarital chastity is the best guarantee
for the continuation of society” is one of these phrases which are
again and again repeated, without there ever being offered any
proof for tlie statement. However, as wc know, the statement is
correct if we keep in mind that it refers to authoritarian society.
Furtlier:

In the hygienic evaluation of sexuality tliere are two opposite views.
One group points to the psychic and physical hann which results from
the suppression of sexuality and logically asks for a healthy sex life
independent of economic conditions. Other groups violently defend
the harmlcssncss of complete sexual abstinence while pointing to the
dangers to health of a disorderly sex life, particularly to the widespread
and dangerous venereal diseases. . . . The only sure prevention is, in
fact, total abstinence. Since this, however, can be demanded only in
exceptional cases, one comes back to the ideal of sexual intercourse in
strictly monogamous marriage. Absolute realization of this ideal would
completely fulfill the desired goal [italics mine, W.R.]. The venereal
diseases would rapidl)' decrease. But this ideal, too, will hardly ever
be realized [italics mine, W.R.]. In addition, keeping marriage pro-
tected would be of little help, since the greatest danger of infection
is before marriage. Thus, only a general sharpening of conscience in
sexual matters can help, in that it prevents at least incautious and
frequently changing sexual relations. One could even imagine that
the liberation of sexual relations, based on strong personal affection,
from the present social and legal restrictions would foster the estab-
lishment of possibly lasting relationships; that it would eliminate
public and clandestine prostitution and thus considerably decrease not
only venereal disease, but other psychic and physical dangers. The
fact cannot be denied that people of both sexes with a natural sexual
urge never let themselves be deterred by the demands of official mores.
On the other hand, one may well adhere to the ideal of establishing

44 THE INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATIVE SEXUAL MORALITY

sexual relationships only with one partner who gives lasting full
physical and emotional satisfaction. For there is no doubt that he
who succeeds in doing so can only be called fortunate.

We see that the conservative sex reformer himself gets close
to the practical solution of the misery. But he cannot get rid of
the ideology of compulsive monogamy; it warps his judgment
and forces him into a blind alley: “On the other hand, one may
well adhere to the ideal . . .” for “he who succeeds can only be
called fortunate.” That may be so, but who does succeed? And
is not the sex moralist the very one who has proclaimed the fiasco
of the ideal? Here, too, the conflict is explained by the economic
basis of the ideal and the impossibility of its realization in a sex-
economic manner.

Thus one oscillates back and forth between the ideology of
chastity and that of marriage because between the two looms the
specter of “venereal disease” which one cannot manage because
it is the practical counterpart of marital morality and the ideology
of chastity. True, the sexologist himself finds that “the liberation
of sexual relations from sociid and legal restrictions would foster
lasting relationships, eliminate prostitution and decrease venereal
disease.” But, society as it is, cannot do without “moral order”
and “compulsion.” Thus, there remains nothing but “a general
sharpening of conscience.”

This task was undertaken by the great authority in the field
of sexual hygiene. Professor Gruber. He writes:

“The pleasure of the creature is mixed with bitterness.” The reader,
undoubtedly, has seen many a confirmation of this statement by
Meister Eckhart. And yet, we have not even begun a detailed discus-
sion of the worst evils which may result from sexual intercourse.

( Hygiene des Gesciilecmtslebens, p. 121 )

“The pleasure of the creature is mixed with bitterness.” Cor-
rect. But nobody who makes such statements thinks of asking
whether this bitterness is of social or of biological origin. The
phrase, “Omne animal post coitum triste” ( “Every creature is sad

‘objective, non-political” science

after sexual intercourse”) has become a scientific dogma. One has
to know that such statements, made by “authorities,” have a
profound influence on tliose who listen reverently to the words
of “authorities” like Gruber. This influence is so profound that
the listeners not only falsify their own perceptions (which would
contradict the statement), but also, fogged by this high-sounding
talk, stop thinking for themselves. Otherwise, they would have
to come to grips with the social situation in which pleasure and
bitterness are inevitably mixed.

One has to know the reactions of an adolescent who reads, for
example, the following statements made by such a sexological
authority as Fiirbringer:

New tasks present themselves in adolescence, in the first place the
medical attitude toward sexual intercourse witli its dangers to general
health and of infection. It is no longer a secret that in our modern
society the majority of men engager in sexual intercourse before mar-
riage. We do not have to take up the question as to what extent
society tolerates— not to say approves— these habits.

( IIandworterbuch, p. 718)

Tlie adolescent takes in the following suggestion:

1. The medical attitude, that is, that attitude for which the
layman has the greatest respect, is that sexual intercourse “dam-
ages general health.” He who has experienced the reaction of
youngsters to such statements, has seen how they fall prey to
sexual conflict, neurosis and hypochondriasis, and how these
statements combine with infantile experiences to produce neu-
roses, will agree with us that such statements call not only for
protest, but practical countermeasures.

2. The physician states that infection may take place. Gruber
states that every woman who has premarital or extramarital inter-
course is suspect. Of course, there would be the solution of having
sexual intercourse only with a partner one knows well and loves;
further, one might agree with one's partner on faithfulness for
the duration of the relationship; or to agree not to have inter-
course for several weeks after intercourse with another partner.

46 THE INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATIVE SEXUAL MORALITY

In these and other ways the bugaboo of venereal disease could
be eliminated. But where does that leave “morality”? Since
Gruber, Fiirbringer and other scientists of their ideology look at
any extramarital relationship through brothel glasses, as Engels
once put it, they fit completely into the atmosphere of reactionary
sexual ideology and are able to come fortli with “moral” admoni-
tions like the following. Gruber writes:

In vi('w of the loathsomeness and dangers of prostitution, a great
mail}' young peopk' will be tempted to seek gratification in a so-callt;d
“affair” until such time as they are able to get married. They should
take to heart the following: Such an affair would provide complete
protection from inleetion only in the case of a virgin and if there were
strict mutual faith! uhiess; considering the high incidence of venereal
disease}, (mij polygamous intercourse, as pointed out before, is highly
dangerous. From a girl, howev(T, who lowers herself to such an
‘affair,’ without pangs of conscience, maybe even for gain, disguised
as it may be, faitlifulness cannot be expected. If, as is so often the
case, she has already gone from hand to hand, she is hardly less
dangerous than the professional prostitute. Another thing the )’oung
man who is fillc'd with the ambition to strive for higher things should
kec‘p in mind: living with a girl who is b(4ow him intellectually and
emotionally, who does not understand his ambitions and who knows
only shallow amusements, will lower his own cultural level. Such a
“love affair” dediles psychicalhj much more than does the occasional
visit to a prostitute which is of the nature of a necessary evacuation,
like visiting a public toilet.

(Hygiene des Gesciileciitslebens, p. 142 - 43 )

“A virgin” would protect against venereal infection, writes
Gruber. But in order to make sure that a young man will not
choose this way, he continues:

To seduce an honorable, high-minded girl into a “temporary love
affair” is an irresponsible undertaking even if it takes place with
complete honesty with regard to the final intentions.

I will not even mention the fact that the act of deflowering in
itself does harm to the girl in that it makes marriage more difficult for

“objective, non-political” science 47

her later on because the man, with a correct instinct, prefers the
untouched woman for a wife.

The main thing is that this is not possible without damage or deep
wounding to the woman s soul. The wish for motlierhood is inborn
in the good woman. Only when sc'xiial intercourse h(dds for her the
promise of beconiing a mother does it make her reall)' hapjyy. He who
introduces a woman, with detestable tricks, to sexual intercourse,
deprives her ol the liour of supreme happiness which an honorable
marriage would have brought her with the first unbounded embraces
(p. 144-45).

In tills way, statements of “scientific fact” are made in the
interest of the institution of marriage: “Only the prospect of
motherhood makes sexual intercourse a happy experience.” We
are familiar with this statement from tlic analvses of frigid, sex-
negative women. And what the “first unbounded embraces in an
honorable marriage” look like we also learn from the therapy of
women who have fallen ill as a result of the “honorable marriage.”

Who could be better equipped for such a sex-moralistic mass
indoctrination than a famous university professor? Reactionary
society is clever in picking its prophets.

The pinnacle of dangerous utilization of “scientific authority”
in the service of reactionar)^ ideology was Gruber's contention
that sexual abstinence was not only not harmful, but highly
useful, because the semen, in abstinence, was re-absorbed and
provided a “source of protein.” “There cannot be any question
of a harmful effect of retaining the semen in the organism, for
the semen is not a harmful excrement like urine and feces.” True,
Gruber hesitated to let this nonsense stand without qualification.
He wrote:

True, one might think that the absorption of semen would be useful
only if it does not go beyond certain limits, tliat too much absorption
might be harmful. To this objection, the following is to be said:
Nature, by way of the involuntary nocturnal emissions— which, if not
too frequent, are quite normal— has seen to it that no excessive accu-
mulation occurs. In addition, the secretion of semen decreases auto-

48 THE INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATIVE SEXUAL MORALITY

matically when the sexual apparatus is not used. The testicles act in
this respect like any other part of the organism. If they are not being
used, less blood flows to them, and with that they suffer a decrease in
their nourishment and their general vitality. In this way, also, harm is
prevented [itahcs mine, W.R.].

These sentences deserve to be read very carefully. What
Gruber here openly says in so many words, is the essence of all
reactionary sexology: In the interest of the moral order, of cul-
ture, and of tlie state, one advocates tlie atrophy of the sexual
apparatus. If we had made such a statement without docu-
mentary proof, nobody would have believed us. Wliat Gruber
expresses here is the essence of reactionary sexology: sexual
atrophy! This being so, one is not surprised to find that over 90
per cent of the women and over 60 per cent of the men are sex-
ually disturbed and that the neuroses are a mass problem.

If one takes recourse to such things as “absorption of the semen
as a source of protein,” nocturnal emissions and atrophy of the
testicles, then there is only one more step to castration as an
active measure. But then such “objective” science would eliminate
itself, to the detriment of ‘Iniman betterment” and “cultural
progress.” In the form of fascist sterilization, this flower of om:
“culture” has become a reality.

Since Gruber’s IlYcuiNE des Geschlechtslebens had printings
of 400,000 copies, that is, was read by at least one million people,
predominantly adolescents, its influence as a social factor is read-
ily apparent. It created, as the external frustrating factor, at least
that many cases of impotence and neurosis.

One might object that it is unfair to quote Gruber alone, that
the majority of sexologists did not identify themselves with him.
But, one may be allowed to ask, who of these sexologists, who
allegedly do not identify themselves with Gruber, wrote anything
against him in an attempt to counteract his influence? I am not
referring to the papers on masturbation and emissions which
gather dust in scientific journals. What I mean is a consistent
translation of scientific conviction into action. For example, the

'objective, non-political"" science

publication of popular pamphlets as a countermeasure against
the hundreds of thousands of pieces of sexual trash literature
written by sexologically ignorant physicians who exj^loit people"s
hunger for sexual knowledge to fill their pockets with royalties.
Such bugaboos as 'Venereal disease"" and “masturbation"" cannot
be fought with esoteric treatises. Neither can one hide behind
consideration for onc"s colleagues and so-called “medical ethics.""
No, the problem is elsewhere. Those who do not identify them-
selves with Gruber "s clear-cut views will nevertheless hesitate to
follow tlieir correct views and scientific convictions to their
logical conclusion and to put them on paper. For doing so will
inevitably lead them beyond the limited confines of conservative
knowledge, and with that, outside the pale of tlieir conventional
society. And that is a risk they are loath to take.

True, there were various attempts to counter these views. But
they were lukewarm or nothing but platitudes. The following is
an illustration:

Similarly, in the interest of a more just evaluation and the avoidance
of the only too frequent social ostracism in connection with sexual
processes, a more general knowledge of the physiological and psycho-
logical basis of sexual life would be desirable. For the recognition of
ones own emotions and the actions determined by them, the acquaint-
ance with scientifically established facts may also be of great signifi-
cance. One has to hope confidently that advancing culture, in particu-
lar when it spreads not only in its individual aspects but also to its
full content, will, in the end, not lead to a deterioration of sexual habits
after all, but to their refinement and increased nobility.

(H. E. Timerding, HA:mwoRTi^RBUCH, p. 713)

The knowledge of the basis of sexual life “would be desirable”
{not “is essential""); the acquaintance with scientific facts “may be
of significance"’ (not “is""); “one has to hope confidently” . . .
“deterioration of sexual habits . . . their refinement and increased
nobility.” Nothing but empty phrases.

But this deplorable state of affairs goes deeper than this: the
findings and the theory formation themselves are moralistically

50 THE INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATIVE SEXUAL MORALITY

prejudiced. Tliis is the case even with authors wlio in other fields
do not show this conservativ^e prejudice. Small wonder, since
the sexual ideology is the most deeply anchored of all conserva-
tive ideologies.

It is a well-known fact that frigidity in women is based on an
ijihibition of vaginal feeling, and that, when this inhibition is
eliminated, vaginal excitation and orgastic potency return. Yet,
in a popular pamphlet, “Neuland der Liebe— Soziologie des
Geschlechtslebens” by Paul Krische, we read the following:

Tlic only point ol sexual excilation and gratiiicatioii in the woina7i
is tlie clitoris, and not, as is still contended even by scientists and
physicians, also the inside of the vagina and the uterus. For sexual
c'xcitation presupjioses the corpora cavernosa and the Krause bodies,
and these are found only in the clitoris. Thus neither utenis nor
vagina can convey sexual pleasure sensations, particularly since they
also serve as the birth canal for the child. . . . In order not to make
childbirth unbearably painful, nature made the sensitive part, the
clitoris, become smaller, ... so that the outlet of the vagina became

insensitive' In this way, nature created that conflict which within

the history of humanity she was unable to solve: by making the
vaginal outlet insensitive in order to make childbirth possible, she also
prevented the desirable satisfaction of woman in coitus (p. 10).

Krische states further that in the Germanic race ‘"at least 60
per cent of the women never, or only rarely, reach satisfaction
in coitus.”^ This he ascribes to the allegedly greater distance
between clitoris and vagina in this race. Nevertheless, on the
same page, conservative morality gets its due:

The most favorable age for bearing children is between 20 and 25.
In order to prevent premature pregnancies, nature has established the
low sexual excitability of the girl as a protective measure.

One might ask why nature then was so clumsy as not to post-
pone ovulation (i.e., the maturing of the eggs) also until the age

1 One might as>k, then, how is it possible for the other 40 per cent of women to
experience satislaciiun after all, if the arrangements of nature make it impossible?

MARITAL MORALITY INIIlBlTINt; SEXUAL REFORM 51

of 20 or 25. One might ask further why this modern God “nature”
has not provided this protection to the large percentage of girls
who, in spite of evcrytliing, suffer severely from sexual excitation.
In addition, we know that girls masturbate not onlv at tlie age of
14, but at the age of 3 and 4, tliat they play with dolls and wish
to have babies by their fathers— in spite of the fact that “nature”
considers the age of 20 or 25 the “appropriate” age. Could this
“nature” possibly be the economic position of woman in our
society and “good bcl'.avior” in sexual matters? I’or how about
Negro and Croatian girls of 14? Has nature forgotten to provide
for them?

Objectively, such theories are nothing but manoeuvres to dis-
tract scientific interest from the true social and psj'chic causes of
sexual disturbances.

The predominantly or exclusively hiolo^istic concept of the
sexual urge as being in the service of procreation is a method of
repression on the part of conservative sexology. It is a finalistic,
i.e., idealistic concept. It presupposes a goal which of necessity
must be of a supernatural origin. It reintroduces a metaphysical
principle and thus betrays a religious or mystical prejudice.

2. MARITAL MORALITY AS THE INHIBITING FACnOR IN ANY KIND

OF SEXUAL REFORM

a) Helene Stocker.

In the preceding section we have tried to show that what leads
any kind of conventional sex reform into a blind alley is the
institution of marriage and the belief in its biological nature; that
all sexual misery can be logically reduced to the ideology of
marriage by way of which authoritarian society decisively influ-
ences all sexual activity. Even the best and most progressive
among the sex reformers— though their program may be correct
from the standpoint of sex-economy— all of them fail at this point.
And that is what makes their programs sterile and hopeless.

The German sex reform movement has been smashed. But in
all other countries it is making headway, even though burdened
with all the contradictions which stem from the denial of

52 THE INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATIVE SEXUAL MORALITY

adolescent sexuality. The discussion to follow applies equally to
any kind of progressive liberal sex reform.

The Deutsche Bund fiir Mutterschutz tind Sexualreforrn (Ger-
man Society for the Protection of Mothers and for Sex Reform),
tlie guiding spirit of which was Helene Stocker, published its
“Richtlinien” (guiding lines) which were drawn up and accepted
in 1922. We first quote the ‘'Richtlinien,” which in principle are
sound from a sex-economic point of view.

RICHTLINIEN

des

Deutscheii Buiides fiir Mutterschutz uiid Sexualrefonn

1. Content and aim of the movement.

This movement grows on the soil of a joyous, life-affirming Weltan-
schauung, out of the conviction of the value and sanctity of human
life.

It attempts to make life between man and woman, parents and
children, and people in general, as rich and fruitful as possible.

Our task is, therefore, to carry to ever larger numbers of people the
realization of how ugly are the social conditions and ethical concepts
which not only tolerate but foster prostitution, venereal disease, sexual
hypocrisy and enforced abstiuence.

The confusion in today's moral values and the resulting personal
sufferings and social evils call for relief. This, however, cannot be
achieved by eliminating .symptoms, but only by the eradication of the
real causes.

But our movement wants not only to eliminate evils; it also wants
to help in a positive manner toward a fulfilment of personal social
life. Our goal is 1) to protect life at its source: maternal health; and
2) to make sexuality a potent instrument not only of procreation, but
of individual development and joy in life: sex reform,

2. The general principle of morality.

The first prerequisite for healthier human and sexual relationships
is the elimination of those moral concepts which base their demands

MARITAL MORALITY INHIBITING SEXUAL REFORM 53

on allegedly supernatural commands, on arbitrary human regulations,
or simply on tradition. Ethics, too, should be based on the findings of
advancing science. We cannot thoughtlessly let something remain
a moral demand that was true in earlier times and only served the
purpose of certain classes. To us, the touchstone of what is “morar
is whether it leads to a richer and more harmonious life, individual
and social.

Thus we reject the concept that body and mind are two antithetical
things. We do not want to see natural sexual attraction stamped as
‘‘sin,” “sensuality,” fought as something low and beastly, and the
“conquering of the flesh” made the guiding principle of morality! To
us, man is a unitary being whose psychic and physical needs have an
equal right to healthy development and care.

Moral precepts are really only such as arise of necessity from the
conditions of peaceful social living where cveiybody has equal rights
and the optimal opportunities for the development of their capacities.
“Moral” to us is that which, under given conditions, best serves the
development of the individual personality and better fonris of social
living.

3. Sexual morals.

Our governing moral concepts and social conditions breed sexual
hypocrisy, physical disease and other ailments. We consider it our
task, therefore, to make the widest circle of pt^ople realize the in-
tolerability of such conditions and the confusion in such concepts, and
to fight such concepts and conditions with all our might. We do not
want “virtue” confused with “abstinence” nor do we want to tolerate
one kind of morality for the man and another for the woman.

Sexual intercourse as such is neither moral nor immoral. Based on a
natural urge, it becomes one or the otlier only through accompanying
circumstances and people s attitude. The significance of sexuality goes
beyond procreation, though this is its most important effect. Rather,
a sexual life which corresponds to a person s individuality and needs
is the prerequisite of a person’s inner and outer harmony in life. It
presupposes, inherently, another personality, to be won by the forces
of attraction. Then, love life opens a wealth of new possibilities of
living and experiencing, ways to a greater depth and refinement of
one’s view of life and one’s knowledge of people— the only way,
finally, to full creative being in motherhood and fatherhood.

54 THE INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATH'E SEXUAL MORALITY

We have quoted so extensively liecause we identify ourselves
essentially with wiiat ^vas said; but a.l.so in order to make a con-
tradiction stand out more clearly. Under “Content and aim of the
movement,” the necessity of the “eradic ation of the real causes”
of sexual misery is pointed out; that “morality” serves the pm-
poses of certain classes is recognized and stated; that “a sexual
life which conesponds to a person’s indi\ iduality and needs is the
prerequisite of a person’s inner and outer harmony in life” is in
complete accord with sex-economic findings. But— already witli
the fonmilation that this is the only way to “full crcatic c being
in motherhood and fatherhood,” a thesis is smuggled in which is
unproved and incapable of proof and which introducc's a state-
ment which suddenlv nullifies eccTything that went before. It is
the point at wdiich thus far any treatmenU of sexuality has failed,
to wdt, the problem of x outh and maniage.

We consider it nec’cssary that tlic youth of l)Olli sexes l)e liardenecl.
be educated to self-discipline and to respect of tlie other sex ;md its
task; in particular, that the male youth should, at an earlv tiim , learn
and practice consideration of the human dignity o! the woman, of her
psychic and emotional life. Wc deinaiul. therefore, ahMiuenee tinlil the
time trf complete jditjsicaJ and p'njcJtie maiurUij. W’c recognize, liow-
ever, the natural right of adult peojrlc, man or woman, to se.xual
intercourse corresponding to their needs, provided it takes place with
tin- full realization of the responsibilitv for tlie possible con.scqnenccs
and without intrusion on the rights of olln r people (for example, to
sexual faitlifulness ) .

Here, we have the following contradictions with w'hat was said
before:

1. Consideration for the ‘liuman dignity” of the woman. 'That
this is not simply one of those old phrases about female sexuality,
is immediately made clear by the succeeding sentence:

2. “We demand, therefore, abstinence until the time of com-
plete physical and psychic maturity.”

'The question is not asked why the sexual act is an insult to
woman s “human dignity”; whether that is true generally, in the

MARITAL MORALITY INHIBITING SEXUAL REFORM

abstract, or only today, in this society, and why. Further, there
is no statement as to when youth may be regarded as physically
and psychically mature, or what are the criteria of such maturity.
Obviously, adolescents reacli physical maturity around the aver-
age age of 14 or 15; they urc then capable of procreation. Psychic
maturity they reach at various ages, depending on their early and
later en\ irorirnent. Already a luimber of contradictions, wliich are
not solvTxl but created by such a general formulation of “physical
and psycliic maturity.*'

3. “Recognition of tlic natural riglit of adult people to sexual
intercourse.** When are the)* “adult**? “Pro\'ided that it lakes
place without intrusion on the rights of other people, for example,
to sexual faithfulness.*’ Tluit means: tlie husband has a right to
the body of his wife and vice versa. What right? Onl\^ that which
is given him by the legal institution of marriage, and no other.
A point of view’ w hich is exactly tliat of reactionary law and that
of die very ideology against wiiich the drafters of the Ricutlinien
profess to fight.

Tlie next contradiction:

^\'e do not sec tlu* (‘sscncc of marriage and its ‘inoralit>’'’ in the
fulfilment of certain formalities. Present-dav concepts leave tlie mo-
tives for a marital union out of consideration, just as long as the pre-
seribc‘d form is adlicaa'd to. All lovc' relationsliips W’hich bear the
rubber stamp of formal eorreetness—aiid only these—are considered
“moral. ' All others are considered “immoral,” without anv considcu'a-
tion of their inner justification, their \ alne and voinnturv responsibilitv.
Finally, in accordance with th(\se concepts, jx-oplt' arc‘ forced by law^
to continue, their marriage even when tht'v h'ol that li\irig together
has no longer any meaning or purpose^, when it has hec'ome nothing
but a torture, or even when they have ceased to live togetlier.

Well and good. But:

Wc consider IcgaUtj recognized monogamous inarriage the highest
and mosi desirable form of human sex relations. Better than anvthing
else, it will guarantee a lasting regulation of sexual intercourse, the

56 THE INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATIVE SEXUAL MORALITY

healthy development of the family and the maintenance of human
society. We do not fail to recognize, however, that lifelong, strictly
monogamous marriage is, and has always been, an id(^al achieved by
a few only. In fact, the larger part of sex life takes place before rnar-
riage and outside of it. Legally bound marriage is incapable, both for
psychic and economic reasons, of absorbing all the possibilities of
justified love relaiionships, that is, incapable of developing them, in
all cases, into a lasting “one-marriage.”

Thus, one advocates ‘legally recognized monogamous mar-
riage,” while at the same time one “does not fail to recognize”
that lifelong monogamous marriage is, and has always been, an
ideal achieved by onl\^ a few, and that the larger part of sex life
takes place extramatrimonially. The people who defend the
institution of marriage on principle never think of inquiring about
its history and social function. They can decree tluit it is the best
of all forms of sex relations— and can state the exact opposite in
the same breath. Thus, there is small wonder that their reforms
are exhausted in such vague, platitudinous phrases as the fol-
lowing:

Consequently wc advocate the following:

a) F reservation of legally recognized monogamous marriage based
on an actual equality of the sexes; the furtherance of the economic
possibiliti^^s for marrying, but also of the psychic possibilities through
education for marriage and parenthood, coeducation and other meas-
ures for a better and deeper “getting-to-know-each-other” between
the sexes;

b) More liberal divorce laws in cases where the conditions which
led to the marriage no longer exist, further, when the marriage no
longer fulfils the purposes of a lasting companionship (in particular,
replacing the principle of guilt by that of incompatibility);

c) Moral and legal recognition of relationships in which the aware-
ness of responsibility for tlie consequences is present and proven-
even when the legal formalities are not comphed with;

d) Fight against “Prostitution” by sanitary measures and psychic
and economic means for the elimination of its causes.

MARITAL MORALITY INHIBITING SEXUAL REFORM 57

1. The “actual equality of the sexes,” in authoritarian society, is
nothing but an empty phrase. It would require a democratic
economy and a person s right to his own body. If these conditions
were given, however, marriage in its present form would auto-
matically cease to exist.

2. The furtherance of economic possibilities for marrying also
remains an empty phrase under the present conditions of pro-
duction. Who is to do the furthering? Tlie very society which is
interested in the perpetuation of the present mode of production?

3. Education for marriage: This is something which, in reality,
is taking place all the time, beginning in infancy. It is against
the very results of this education that the Bund was established.
An institution which requires sex repression for its maintenance,
is a priori at varianct' with “coeducation” and a “deeper getting-
to-know-each-other” of the sexes, if these arc not again to become
empty phrases.

4. “More liberal divorce laws” in themselves mean little.
Either the economic position of the woman and the children is
such that a divorce is economically impossible. In this case a
‘liberalization of divorce laws” docs no good. Or the conditions
of production change in such a manner that economic inde-
pendence of tlie woman and social care of the children becomes
possible. In that case, the termination of a sexual companionship
will no longer meet any external difficulties, ain'how.

5. Fighting the causes of prostitution. The causes are unem-
pIo^Tuent and the ideology of chastity for the “well-brought-up”
girls. To fight this, it takes more than sanitary measures. Who
is going to take these measures? The same reactionary society
which is incapable of managing unemployment and depends
for its existence on the ideology of chastity?

Sexual misery cannot be overcome by such measures. It is an
essential part of the existing social structure.

b) Auguste Ford.

None among the socialist sexologists has stressed more than
Forel the hygienic damages of the mercenary aspects of the

58 THE INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATIVE SEXUAL MORALITY

sexual function. He recognized all the basic sexual diflRculties
which spring from tlie authoritarian way of li\'ing, without, it is
true, comprehending the deeper economic roots of sexual misery.
Correspondingly, his findings result in lamentations instead of
practiced consequences, in well-meaning bits of advice instead of
the realization of the specific connection between sexual misery
and prevailing social structure. As might be expected, his ideo-
logical prejudice expressed itself in contradictions in his own
views. As long as it wiis a matter of generalizations, his etliical
point of view, as expressed in his pamphlet, Sext’ELLE Ethik,
was that “the gratification of the sexual instinct, in man and
woman, is, all in all, not a matter of ethics." Thus he wrote, “We
boldly state that any sexual intercourse wliich does no harm to
either of tlie partners nor to tlhrd persons or to the quality of a
possibly resulting child . . . cannot be immoral” . . . “As long .
as they do no harm, one has to tolerate these acts, all the more
in that happiness and healthy joxous work often depend on a
normal instinctual gratification” (p. 20). Magnificent sentences,
considering the times in which they wT'ie penned. After stating
that the man “usually has a polygamous constitution” (betraying
the influence of double sexual morality which beclouds the find-
ing of facts), Forel gives the following advice:

Tlie etliical sexual ideal is definitely the monogamous marriage
based on mutiud and lasting love and faithfulness and blessed unth
children, . . . This is not as rare an occurnaicc as our modern pessi-
mists contend, but it is also not of very frequent occurrence. In order
that this marriage be what it can and should be, it has to be absolutely
fre(^; that means, both partners must be absolutely equal; there must
be no external compulsion to keep it together, such as the responsi-
bility toward the children. That means, in the first place, separate
property rights for husband and wife and proper evaluation of any
kind of work on the part of the woman as well as the man.

But in that case, marriage eliminates itself, for Forels last
postulate takes away its very basis, the sexual and economic

MARITAL MORALITY INHIBITING SEXUAL REFORM 59

suppression of tlie woman. And in practice, tins is what it looks
like (letter from a patient seeking advice):

Polygamous conflict: ‘Tor quite some time, I havc^ had a passion for
another woman. I try to fight it in vain. As a married mam possessing
the dearest spouse with whom I have been living peaceably for 32
years. . . . f well realize that such a liaison would be in no way justi-
fied or even excusable. Nexc'rtheless, 1 find myself again and again
too weak to resist this passion.”

'‘Suggestion is to be tried first in combating this.’’ '7n such
cases,*' Forel continues, “if is difficult to fiive advice.^^ Indeed it
is difficult, considering the fact that every member of conserva-
tive societv has it constantlv dinned into him that a relationship
with another woman is “in no way justified or even excusable.”

c) The end of the World Leafiue for Sexual Reform,

During the late ’20s, the liberal humajhst and socialist Magnus
Hirschfcld had organized his work in the form of the World
League for Sexual Reform. This body comprised the then most
progressix^e sexologists and sex reformers of the world. Its pro-
gram contained the following points:

1. Political, economic and sexual equality of woman.

2. Liberation of marriage (in particular, of divorce) from the
influence of church and state.

3. Birth control in the sense of responsible procreation.

4. Eugenic measures for the insurance of healthy progeny.

5. Protection of unmarried motliers and children born out of
wedlock.

6. Correct evaluation of intersexual variants, especially of
homosexual men and women.

7. Prevention of prostitution and venereal disease.

8. The concept of sexual disturbances as pathological mani-
festations instead of as crime, sin or vice.

9. A sexual penal law which would punish only actual en-
croachments on tlie sexual freedom of another person, but would

60 THE INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATIVE SEXUAL MORALITY

not interfere with sexual activities engaged in by mutual consent
of adult individuals.

10. Planned sexual education and information.

The Danish sex-economist, Dr. Leunbach, who was one of
tlie three presidents of the WLSR, has described tlie great merits,
of tlie World League, at the same time giving a relevant criti-
cism of its contradictions.^’ The main points of his criticism
were in regard to the attempts of the World League to carry
out its sexual refonn ‘‘unpolitically”; its liberalistic generosity
which went as far as leaving it to each country to let themselves
be guided by their respective laws; the neglect of infantile
and adolescent sexuality; and the affirmation of the existing
institution of compulsive marriage.

After the death of Hirschfeld, Norman Ilairc and Leunbach
publisihed the following declaration:

To all members and sections of the World League for Sexual
Reform:

We, Dr. Norman Haire, London, and Dr. Leunbach, Copenhagen,
the surviving presidents of the WLSR, are in the sad position of
ha\ang to announce the death of our first president, Magnus Hirsch-
feld. He died in Nice, on May 14, 1935.

What we would like to do would bt‘ to call a congress to consider
the fate of the WLSR. This seems unfeasible for the same reason for
which it was impossible to call a new international congress since the
last one in Bnio in 1932. Political and economic conditions in Europe
have made impossible not onlv international congresses, but also
further work of the WLSR in many countries. The French section no
longer exists, the Spanish section has ceased all activity since the
death of Hildegart, as have most sections in other countries. As far
as we can establish, the English section is the only one which con-
tinues to function actively.

In the absence of an international congress, the two surviving
presidents see themselves forced to the realization that the continua-
tion of the WLSR as an international organization is no longer
possible.

2 “Von der biirgcrlichcn Scxualrcforin zur revolutionareri Scxualpolitik." Zeitschr.
f, Polit. Psychol, u. Sexualok. 2, 1935,

THE BLIND ALLEY OF SEX EDUCATION

For this reason, we declare the World League for Sexual Reform
to be dissolved. The individual sections will have to decide for them-
selves whether they want to continue to function as independent
organizations or whether they want to dissolve.

Among the members of the various sections, considerable differ-
ences of opinion have arisen as to the extent to which the League
should continue its original non-political character. Some members are
of the opinion that it is impossible to reach the goals of the WLSR
without at the same time fighting for a socialist revolution.

Dr. Haire insists that all revolutionary activity should be kept out
of the program of the WLSR. Dr. Lcunbach is of the opinion tliat the
WLSR cannot achieve anything because it has not joined the revo-
lutionary workers’ movement nor is in a position to do so. Dr. Leun-
bachs point of \'iew has been published in the 7.citschr. f. Polit.
Psychol, u. Scxualok., 2, 1935, No. 1, Dr. Ilaire’s answer in No. 2.

Now that the World League for Sexual Reform has been dissolved,
the members of the various sections are free to decide these problems
for themselves.

Norman IIaire
J. n. Leunbach

This was the end of an organization which attempted the
liberation of sexuality within the framework of reactionary
society.

3. TOE BLIND AIXEY OF SEX EDUCATION
Tlie present crisis of education in general and of sexual edu-
cation in particular has set into focus the (uiestion whether
children should get sexual information, wlietlicr one should ac-
custom them to the sight of the naked human body, more spe-
cifically, of the human genitals. There is a consensus of opinion
—at least in circles not directly under the influence of the church—
that secrecy about sexual matters does far more harm than
good. True, there is a decent and strong intention to put an end
to the present desperate state of affairs in education. But there
are also striking disagreements among the educational reformers,
disagreements which can be traced to tw^o sources: personal and

62 THE INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATRTE SEXUAL MORALITY

social. I sliall discuss only a few of the fundamental diflBculties
which make themsehes felt whenever nakedness and sex in-
formation are put forward as an aim.

Among the infantile sexual impulses, those aiming at the
observation and the display of the genitals arc particularly well
known. Under present educational conditions, these impulses
are usually repressed at a ver\^ early time. As a result of this
repression, children develop two different feelings: First, they
develop guilt feelings because they know that they are doing
something stricth' forbidden if they give in to tlieir impulses.
Second, tlie fact that the genitals arc covered up and ‘"taboo”
gives a m\:stic air to everA thing sexual. Consequently, the natural
impulse to look at things changes into lascivious curiosity. De-
pending on the extent of the repression, eitlier sexual shyness or
lasciviousness develops more strongly. Usually, both exist side
by side, so that the old conflict is replaced by a new one. The
later outcome is one of two things: either the repression is main-
tained and neurotic SMuptoms develop, or the rc'pressed breaks
through in tlie form of a per\ ersion, namely, exhibitionism. Given
a sex-negating upbringing, the development of a sextial structure
which disturbs neither subjective well-being nor social living
is mostly the result of chance and the interplav of a number of
factors, such as the liberation from parental and to some extent
from social authority in puberty, and, most importantly, the
ability to establish a normal sex life. It is easv to see, then,
that tlie repression of the impulse to obser\’e and to display the
genitals leads to results winch no educator could consider
desirable.

Sexual education in the past proceeded from a negative valua-
tion of sexuality and from ethical instead of hygienic arguments.
Its results are neuroses and perversions. To object to an education
accepting nakedness means to agree vith the usual antisexual
education. On the otlier hand, to sanction nakedness and to leave
the other aims of sexual education untouched would mean cre-
ating a contradiction which would either render any practical
attempt illusory or would render the situation even more diffl-

THE BLIND ALLEY OF SEX EDUCATION

cult for the child. A compromise in the field of sex education is
not possible because the sexual impulse follows its own inlierent
laws. Before tackling the question of sex education at all one
must first take an unequivocal stand for or against sex-affiiTnation
or sex-negation, for or against the ruling sexual morality. With-
out clarity about one’s own standpoint in this question any dis-
cussion of the sexual problem is fruitless; it is the prerequisite
of any agreement in these matters. Where, however, such a clari-
fication of the prerequisites leads to, shall be shown here.

We reject, then, a sex-negating upbringing because of its
dangers to health, and decide in favor of a sex-affirming up-
bringing. Some people will say that this is not so dangerous after
all, that they acknowledge the value of sexuality and tliat it is
only a matter of “furthering its sublimation.” But that is not the
point here. It is not a question of sublimation, but of the con-
crete question whether the sexes should lose their shyness to
expose their genitals and other erotically important parts of
their bodies. More concretely: whether educators and pupils,
parents and children, when bathing and playing, sliould appear
before each other naked or in bathing costume; whether naked-
ness should become a matter of course. Everyone who accepts
nakedness unconditionally— conditional acceptance has its place
only in the conservative nudist clubs where nudism is practised
for tlie training in sexual abstinence— everyone who does not
strive for mere islands in the ocean of social morality but for
a general reform toward natural sexualitw will ha\'e to examine
the relationship of nakedness to sexuality in general and will
have to see if the consequences of his endeavors— no matter what
their present practicability may be— lie in the direction of his
intentions.

Medical experience shows that sexual repression results in
illness, perx'ersion and lasciviousness. I.et us try to formulate
the conditions and the results of a sex-affirmative upbringing.
If one is not ashamed of appearing naked before a child it will
not develop sexual shyness or lasciviousness; on the other hand,
it will vmdoubtedly wish to have its sexual curiosity satisfied.

64 THE INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATIVE SEXUAL MORALITY

This wish one can hardly deny; in doing so, one would create
a far more difficult conflict much harder for the child to suppress.
In addition, there would be a far greater danger of a perversion
developing. Of course, one could not object to masturbation,
and would have to explain to the child the process of procrea-
tion. One might evade the child’s request to watch sexual inter-
course. But that would already mean a restriction of a sex-
aflSrmative attitude. For what could one say to a cynical sexual
moralist who would ask why the child should not watch sexual
intercourse and who would point out that, as analytical experience
shows, practically ever>^ child has listened to it, anyhow? So why
should the child not see it? He might ask, further, what could
be the objection to it, since tlie child often enough observes the
sexual act between animals anyhow? Such questions might force
us to admit that we have no argument against it, except perhaps
an ethical one, which would only support the position of our
moralist. Or else we would have the courage to admit that if
we do not want the child to watch the act, it is not in the child’s
interest, but in the interest of our own undisturbed pleasure.
The only alternative would be either to turn to sexual ethics
again— which of necessity is always antisexual— or to face the
most touchy of problems, our attitude toward s€»xual intercourse.
In the latter case, we would have to make sure that the District
Attorney’s office did not hear about it because he would inevi-
tably bring a charge of indecency against us.

The reader who believes that we are exaggerating is asked
to follow us a little further in order to convince himself that ap-
proval of nakedness and sexual education, factually and ration-
ally carried out, carries with it the danger of jail for educator as
well as pupil.^

Let us suppose that in our own sexual interest we divert the
child’s desire to watch sexual intercourse. We soon become en-
tangled in insoluble contradictions and find that all our endeavors

3 The editor of a Journal who reprinted this section— which first appeared as an
article in the Zeitschr. /. psychoan. Pddagogik in 1927— was sentenced to 40 days in
jail, by a highly liberal Government.

THE BLIND ALLEY OF SEX EDUCATION

are thrown overboard if we did not give a strictly truthful answer
to the child’s question as to when it will be able to do the same.
It has learned that the child grows within the mother, and also,
that for this purpose the parents have to engage in the sexual act.
If the parents had been courageous they have told the child that
sexual intercourse is pleasurable, just as playing with the genital
is pleasurable to the child. But if the child knows this, it cannot
be put off for very long. With puberty, there is increased sexual
excitation, involuntary emissions, menstruation, etc. If we tried
to put the youngster off any longer, our sexual moralist would
ask the logical question— though it may sound ironical— what
were our objections to sexual intercourse now? He will rightly
point out that among the industrial workers and the peasantry,
sexual life is taken up as a matter of course at the time of sexual
maturity, that is, around the age of 15 or 16. No doubt we shall
feel embarrassed at the thought tliat our sons and daughters
might insist on their right to full sexual intercourse at the age of
15 or 16, or possibly earlier. After an embarrassed hesitation, we
will look for arguments. We may remember the argument of
“cultural sublimation,” the argument tliat abstinence in puberty
is necessary for intellectual development. We may recommend
these youths— who previously had grown up without sexual re-
strictions- that, in tlieir own interest, they remain abstinent “for
the time being.” But our malicious and well-infonned moralist
will put forward two arguments which cannot be countered.
First, he will say, there is no abstinence anyhow: sexologists and
analysts contend that nearly 100 per cent of adolescents mastur-
bate, and he cannot see any fundamental difference between
masturbation and the sexual act. More tlian that, not only does
masturbation reduce sexual tension less eflBciently than does
sexual intercourse; it is also connected witli much more conflict
and, consequently, much more harmful. Second, he will say, if
masturbation is so universal, the tliesis of the necessity of absti-
nence for intellectual development cannot be correct. He will
have heard it said that not the occurrence of masturbation, but,
rather, its absence in childhood and puberty is a pathological

66 THE INELtHENCE OF CONSERVATIVE SEXUAL MORALITY

sign; that notliing proves that adolescents living in abstinence
grow into more acti\'e adults, on the contrary. At this point we
may remember that Freud reduced the general intellectual in-
feriority of women to their greater sexual inhibitions and that
he contended that the sexual life is the prototype of social achieve-
ment. True, later on he contradicted himself when he asserted
that sexual repression was necessary for cultural achievement.
He failed to distinguish satisfied and unsatisfied .sexuality; the
former fmthefs, the latter impedes cultural acliievement. The
few bad poems which occasionally are created during abstinence
are of no great interest.

Intellectually convinced by this time, we will try to find the
motives of our untenable argumentation; in so doing, we find
in ourselves all kinds of interesting and not exactly pleasant tend-
encies, tendencies which do not seem to fit our progressive en-
deavors. Our argument about intellectual development proves a
rationalization of om reluctance to let sexuality take its natural
course. This we will wisely keep from our moralist, but we will
frankly admit the untenability of our arguments and bring up a
more serious one ourselves. Namely, what will happen to tlie
children resulting from these first unions suicc there is no eco-
nomic possibility of bringing tliem up? Our opponent will ask
in amazement whv we do not want to inform all adolescent
school children about contraception. A vision of the laws against
immorality will soon bring us back to the solid ground of social
reality. All kinds of things will occur to us: That, with our ap-
proval of nakedness, with our sexual education— dealing not with
the fertilization of flowers, but of humans!— we are pulling one
stone after the other from the edifice of conservative morality;
that the ideal of virginity until marriage becomes as hollow as
that of eternal monogamy, and with that the ideal of conven-
tional marriage in general. For no sensible person will contend
that people who have had a sex education which is serious, un-
compromising and based on science, will be able to conform to
the prevailing compulsive customs and morality.

Our moralist, having brought us to the place where he wanted

THE BLIND ALLEY OF SEX EDUCATION

US, will ask triumphantly whether we really believe that any of
the demands which result from an attempt at honest sexual edu-
cation can be carried through under existing social conditions.
He will ask whether we really consider all this desirable. He will
add, with full justification, that he only wanted to prove to us
that everytlhng had to remain unchanged, sex-negating educa-
tion, neuroses, perversions, prostitution and venereal diseases,
if the high values of marriage, chastity, the faniilv and conserva-
tive society were to be maintained. Thereupon many a fanatic
among the sex educators will take to his heels. In doing so, he
will act more honestly and conscioush% in better awareness of
his own position, than he who, in order not to lose the sense of
his progressiveness, will say tliat all tins is greatly exaggerated,
that sex information could not possiblv ha\e all these effects,
tliat, in fact, it is not so important after all. But then one migjit
justly ask, why all the efforts?

If individual parents give their children a consistent rational
sex education they will have to know tliat tliere are many things
which tliey will liave to renounce and which ordinarily parents
value most highh^ in their children, sucli as attacliment to the
family far beyond puberty, a sexual life of the children such as
is considered “decent” today, submission to the parent’s judg-
ment in important life decisions, “good matches” for the daugh-
ters according to pre^'alent concepts, and many more things.
The few parents who will bring up their children in this manner
have no social influence. They also ha\ e to keep in mind that
they will expose their children to serious conflicts with the pres-
ent social and moral order, although the\^ are spared neurotic
conflicts. But anyone who, dissatisfied with the present social
order, belieyes himself able to change the present order by any
activities on a large scale, say, in schools, will soon come to feel
that by withdrawal of his means of existence or by far more
severe measures— mental institution or jail— he will be deprived
of the possibility to discuss with us the question as to whether
his method of changing the social order is the correct one. We
need not adduce proof for the fact that the representatives of

68 THE INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATIVE; SEXUAL MORALITY

society which are materially interested in the maintenance of tlie
present social order tolerate or even further sucli reform move-
ments as are only insignificant pastimes but immediately become
brutal ami utilize all the ample means of suppression at their
disposal as soon as it is a matter of serious endeavors which
tlireaten to shake their material and the corresponding ideal
values.

Sex education raises serious problems of much greater con-
sequence tlian most sex reformers even dream of. It is for this
reason that there is no progress whatsoever in this field, in spite
of all the knowledge and means which sexual reseurcli has placed
in our hands. We are up against a powerful social apparatus which
for the time being offers passive resistance but wliicli will pro-
ceed to active resistance with the first serious practical endeavor
on our part. All hesitation and precaution, all indecision and
tendency to compromise in questions of sex education can be
traced not only to our own sexual repressions but— in spite of
the honesty of educational endeavors— to the fear of getting into
serious conflict witli the conservative social order.

The following tw^o examples from the sex hygiene clinic will
show that medical conscience often forces one to take measures
which are in sharp conflict not only with conservative moralism
but also with the usual kind of sex reform.

A girl of 16 and a boy of 17, both strong and well developed, come
to the sex hygiene clinic, shy and apprehensive. After much en-
couragement, the boy asks whether it is really so harmful to have
sexual intercourse before the age of 20.

“Why do you think it is harmful?*'

“That's what our group leader in the Red Falcons says and every-
body else who talks about the sexual question."

“Do you talk about these things in your group?"

“Certainly. We all suffer horribly, but nobody dares to talk openly.
Just recently, a bunch of boys and girls left and formed their own
group, because they couldn't get along with the group leader. lie is
one of those who keeps saying that sexual intercourse is harmful."

“How long have you known each other?"

•HIE BLIND ALLEY OF SEX EDUCATION

“Tlirec years.”

"Have you had sexual intercourse together?"

No, but we love ('ach other veiy much and we must break up
bc'cause \vt' always get so terribly excited.”

"Ilow is that?”

(After a long pause.) "Well, wc kiss each other, and so on. Most of
them do that. But now wc are almost going crazy. The worst thing is
that because of our functions we always have to work togetlier. She
has had veiy^ frequent crying spells recently and I am beginning to
fail in school.”

"What do you two think would be the best solution?”

"We thought of breaking up, but that wouldn't work. The whole
group we l(*ad would disintegrate, and then the same thing would
happen with another group.”

"Do you do sports?”

"Yes, but it's no good at all. When we are together we only think
of one thing. Please tc‘ll us whether it's really harmful.”

"No, it is not harmful, but it oft(*n creates great difEculties with
parents and other people.”

I explained to them the physiology of puberty and of sexual
intercourse, the social obstacles, the danger of pregnancy, and
contraception, and told them to think things over and come back.
Two weeks later I saw tliem again, happy, grateful and able to
work. They had overcome all inner and outer difficulties. I con-
tinued to see tliem occasionally over a period of two months and
became certain that I had been able to save two young people
from falling ill. The satisfaction about this outcome was only
marred b}^ the realization that such successes of simple counsel-
ing are rare exceptions, due to the neurotic fixations of most of
the young people who come for advice.

The second example is that of a woman of 35 who looked much
younger than her age. Her situation was the following: She had been
married for 18 years, had a grown son and lived with her husband in
an outwardly happy marriage. For the past three years, the husband
had had a relationship with another woman. The wife tolerated this,
with a good understanding of the fact that after a marriage of such

70 THE INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATIVE SEXUAL MORALITY

long duration there will be a desire for another sexual partner. For
some months now, she had been suffering from her sexual abstinence
but was too proud to induce her husband to have intercourse with
her. To an increasing degrt'e, slie suffered from palpitations, insomnia,
irritability and depression. She had made the acquaintance of another
man, but moral scruples kept her from having intercourse with him,
although she herself considered her scruples nonsensical. Her husband
kept boasting about her fidelity, and she knew perfectly well that he
would not have been willing to grant her that right which he took
for himself as a matter of course. She asked what she should do, saying
that she could no lonjicr stand the situation.

A case like this needs careful aiial)'sis. Continuation of sexual
abstinence meant the certainty of neurotic illness. To disturb
tlie husband in his new relationship and to win him back was
impossible for two reasons. First, he would not have let himself
be disturbed and had openly admitted that he no longer had
any sexual desire for her; second, she herself no longer desired
him. There remained only a sexual relationship with the man .she
loved. The difficulty was that she was not economically inde-
pendent and the husband, on hearing of it, would immediately
have started divorce proceedings. I discussed all these possibili-
ties with the woman and told her to think it over. After a few
weeks I learned that slie had decided to establish a sexual rela-
tionship with her friend and to keep it a secret from her hus-
band. Her stasis-neurotic disturbances disappeared soon there-
after. Her decision liad been made possible by my successful
attempt to dispel her moral scruples. According to law, I had
become guilty. What I had done was to make sexual gratification
possible for a woman on the verge of neurotic illness.

It was at about tliis time that one night I found a copy of my
pamphlet Sexuai^fj^recung und Sexualbefriedigung in my letter
box, with the following sentences written on the cover: ‘T warn
you! Don’t go too far, you dispoiler of youth! Stop this business,
you dog—beat it to Russia! Or else!”

A threat to life as the response of conservative society to a
matter-of-course medical procedure. One can easily understand
the cautiousness of customary sex reform.

Chapter V

THE AUTHORITARIAN FAMILY AS
EDUCATIONAL APPARATUS

The foremost breeding place of the ideological atmosphere of
conservatism is the authoritarian family. Its prototype is tlie tri-
angle: father, mother, child. While the family, according to con-
servative concepts, is the basis, tlie “nucleus'" of human society as
such, the study of its changes in the course of historical develop-
ment and of its social function at any given time reveals it to be
the result of definite economic constellations. Thus, we do not
consider the family the cornerstone and l)asis of society, but the
product of its economic structure (matriarchal and patriarchal
family, Zadruga, polygynous and monogynous patriarchy, etc.).
If conservative sexology, morality and legislature keep pointing
to the family as the basis of “state” and “society,” they are correct
insofar as the authoritarian family is indeed pait and parcel, and
at tlie same time, prerequisite, of tlie authoritarian state and of
authoritarian society. Its social significance lies in its following
characteristics:

J. Economicalhj: In the early da\s of capitalism, the family
was the economic unit of enterprise and still is among the farmers
and small tradesmen.

2. Socially: In authoritarian society, the family has tlie im-
portant task of protecting the woman and the children who are
deprived of economic and sexual rights.

3, Politically: In the pre-capitalistic phase of home-industry
and in early industrial capitalism the family had immediate roots
in tlie familial economy ( as is still the case in the economic set-up
of small farms). With the development of the means of produc-
tion and the collectivization of the work process, however, there

THE AUTHORITARIAN FAMILY

occurred a change in the function of the family. Its immediate
economic basis became less significant to the extent to which the
woman was included in the productive process; its place was
taken by the political function which the family now began to
assume. Its cardinal function, that for which it is mostly sup-
ported and defended by conservative science and law, is that of
serving as a factory for authoritarian ideologies and conservative
structures. It forms tlie educational apparatus through which
practically every individual of our society, from the moment of
drawing his first breath, has to pass. It influences the child in the
sense of a reactionary ideology not only as an authoritarian insti-
tution, but also on the strength of its own structure; it is the con-
veyor belt between the economic structure of conservative
society and its ideological superstructure; its reactionary atmos-
phere must needs become inextricably implanted in every one of
its members. Through its own form and through direct influenc-
ing, it conveys not only conservative ideologies and conservative
attitudes toward the existing social order; in addition, on the
basis of the sexual structure to which it owes its existence and
which it procreates, it exerts an immediate influence on the
sexual structure of the children in the conservative sense. It is
not by accident that the attitude of adolescents toward the ex-
isting social order, pro or contra, corresponds to their attitude,
pro or contra, toward the family. Similarly, it is not by accident
that conservative and reactionary youths, as a rule, are strongly
attached to tlieir families while revolutionary youths have a nega-
tive attitude toward the family and detach themselves from it.

This has to do with the sex-negative atmosphere and structure
of the family and with the relationships among the members of
the family.

Thus, in studying the educational significance of the family,
we have to investigate two separate facts; first, the influence of
the concrete social ideologies which influence youth with the
help of the family, and second, the immediate influence of the
“triangle structure” itself.

THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL IDEOLOGY

1 . THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL IDEOI.OGY

Wliatever differences there may be between the families of
different classes, they have one important thing in common: they
are all exposed to the same sex-moralistic atmosphere. Whatever
individual class morality this or that class may have does not
counteract this atmosphere; it exists beside it and compromises
with it.

The predominating tv-pe of the family, the lower middle class
family, extends far beyond the social class of the “lower middle
classes,” into the upper classes and even farther into the class
of the industrial workers.

Tlie basis of the middle class family is the relationship of the
patriarchal father to wife and children. He is, as it were, the ex-
ponent and representative of the authority of the state in the
family. Because of the contradiction between liis position in the
production process (subordinate) and his family function (boss)
he is a top-sergeant type; he kotows to those above, absorbs the
prevailing attitudes (hence his tendency to imitation) and domi-
nates those below; he transmits the governmental and social
concepts and enforces them.

As far as sexual ideology is eoncerned, the social ideology of
marriage of the lower middle class family is identical with the
basic idea of the family in general, lifelong monogamous mar-
riage. As miserable and hopeless, painful and intolerable as tiie
marital situation and family constellation may be, the members
of the family must defend it, in the family and outside. The
social necessity of doing so makes it necessary to hush up the
actual misery and to idealize family and marriage; it also pro-
duces the widespread family sentimentality and the slogans of
“family happiness,” “the home as the castle,” “the quiet harbor”
and the haven of happiness which the family allegetffy represents
to the children. The fact that in our own society things are even
more hopeless outside of marriage and family, because there
sexuality lacks any kind of help, material, legal or ideological.

THE AUTHORITARIAN FAMILY

is misinterpreted in the sense that the family is a naiuraJ, hio-
logical institution. The self-deception about the true state of
affairs and the sentimental slogans which are important elements
in die ideological atmosphere are a psychic necessity; they help
tolerate the psychically intolerable family situation. This is why
the treatment of neuroses is apt to destroy familial and marital
bonds, because it does awav with illusions and bares the actual
trudi.

The goal of cducaiion, from the very beginning, is education
for marriage and familt/. Education for a profession comes much
later. A sex-negating and scx-denving education is not only
dictated by the social atmosphere; it is also necessitated by the
sexual repression on the part of the adults. Williout a far-reach-
ing degree of sexual resignation, existence in the atmosphere of
the compulsi\ e fainil}^ is impossible.

In the typical conseryati\ e family, the influencing of sexuality
takes on a specific form vvliich lays die basis for a '‘marriage and
famih mentality. That is, by an oycrernphasis on the functions
of eating and excretion, the child is arrested in the stages of
pregenital eroticism, while genital actiyity is strictly inhibited
(prohibition of masturbation). Pregenital fixation and genital
inhibition cause a displacement of the sexual interest in the
direction of sadism. The sexual curiosity of the child is actively
suppressed. This creates a contradiction with the existing living
arrangements, tlie sexual behavior of the parents in front of the
children and the inevitable sexual milieu in the family. Needless
to say, the children observe everything although they get dis-
torted impressions and ideas of what goes on.

The ideological and educational inliibition of sexuality, with
the simultaneous witnessing of the most intimate acts among the
adults, already lay in the child the basis for sexual hypocrisy.
This is somewhat less the case in industrial workers’ families
where there is less emphasis on the functions of eating and
digesting while the genital activity is more important and less
taboo. For the children of such families, the conflicts are fewer,
the way to genitality blocked less. All this is entirely due to the

TIIE TRIANGLE STOUCTURE

economic conditions of the industrial worker’s family. If a
worker is economically successful and ascends a few steps into
the workers’ aristocracy, his children are exposed more strongly
to the pressure of conservative morality. While in the conserva-
tive family sexual suppression is more or less complete, it is
mitigated in the industrial workers’ milieu by the fact that the
children are much less supervised.

2. THE TRIANGI.E STRUCTURE

On the one hand, the familv influences the child in the sense
of social ideology. On the other hand, tlie very constellation of
the family, its triangle structure, has in itself an influence on the
child which again lies entirely in the direction of the conserva-
tive tendencies of society.

Freud’s discovery that wherever this triangle structure exists
the child develops definite sexual attachments, of a tender and
sensual nature, to its parents, is basic for an understanding of
individual sexual development. The so-called ‘'Oedipus complex”
comprises all those relationships which are determined, in their
intensity as well as in their final outcome, bv the family and the
larger environment. The child directs its first genital love im-
pulses toward the persons in its immediate environment, which
means, in most cases, the parents. Typically, the parent of the
other sex is lo\ ed and tlie one of the same sex hated. These feel-
ings of hatred and jealousy are soon complicated by guilt feelings
and fear. The fear is primarily connected witli the genital feel-
ings toward tlie oilier parent. This fear continues with the actual
impossibility of satisfying the incestual desire and brings about
the repression of the desire. This repression is the basis of almost
all of the sexual disturbances in later life.

Tw^o facts which are basic for the outcome of this infantile
experience should not be overlooked. First, there w^ould be no
repression if the boy, altliough forced to renounce his genital
desire for his mother, w^erc at the same time allowed to mastur-
bate and to play genitally with girls of his owm age. People
do not like to admit the fact that such sexual playing (‘playing

THE AUTHORITARIAN FAMILY

doctor,” ‘playing house”) always takes place when children are
together for any length of time; because tliese games are con-
demned by tlie environment, they always take place on the sly,
with guilt feelings and consequent harmful fixations to these
games. The child who does not dare engage in such games when
opportunity presents itself fits into the scheme of family educa-
tion but is certain to develop a serious impairment of its later sex
life. It is impossible much longer to deny these facts and to escape
the consequences that follow from them. True, they cannot be
mastered within the framework of authoritarian society and as
long as family education is guided by economic and political
principles.

The repression of the early sexual drives is determined, quali-
tatively and quantitatively, by the way parents think and feel
about sexuality. Much depends on whether the parents are more
or less strict, whether the negative attitude of the parents extends
to masturbation, etc.

The fact that the child experiences his genitality, at the critical
age between 4 and 6, in the parental home, forces on him that
solution which is t)q)ical of family education. If a child were
brought up from its third year together with other children and
without the influence of the parent fixation, it would develop an
entirely different sexuality. The fact should not be overlooked
that family education counteracts a collective education even if
a child spends several hours a day in a kindergarten. In a practical
way, the family ideology has much more influence on the kinder-
garten than the kindergarten on family education.

The child cannot escape a sexual and authoritarian fixation to
the parents. It is oppressed by parental authority on the basis of
its physical smallness alone, whether this authority is strict or
not. Soon, the authoritarian fixation drowns out the sexual one
and forces it into an unconscious existence; later, at a time when
the sexual interests try to turn to the extrafamilial world, this
authoritarian fixation stands as a powerful inliibition between the
sexual interest and reality. Just because this authoritarian fixation
becomes largely unconscious, it is no longer accessible to con-

TIIE TRIANGLE STRUCTURE

scious influencing. It means little that this unconscious fixation to
parental authority often expresses itself as its opposite, as neu-
rotic rebellion. Tliis cannot release the sexual interests except
perhaps in the form of impulsive sexual actions, of a pathological
compromise between sexuality and guilt feeling. The dissolution
of this fixation is the basic prerequisite of a healthii sex life. As
things are today, only a small minority of people succeed in this.

Parental fixation— })oth sexual fixation and submission to pater-
nal authority— makes the step into .sexual and social reality at
puberty difficult if not impossililc. The conservative ideal of the
good boy and good girl who remain hopelessly stuck in the
infantile situation far into their adult lives, is the extreme opposite
of a free, independent youth,

A further characteristic of family education is that parents,
especially the mother, unless she is forced to work outside the
home, see in tlicir children the only content of their lives, to the
great disadvantage of the children. Facts such as that the children
tlien play the role of household pets whom one can love but also
torture according to one’s whims, tliat the emotional attitude of
the parents makes them altogether unsuited for the task of educa-
tion, are platitudes which need no furtlier mention.

Marital misery, to the extent to which it does not exhaust itself
in the marital conflicts, is poured out over tlie children. This
creates new damage to their independence and their sexual struc-
ture. But, in addition, it creates still another conflict: that be-
tween their aversion to marriage because of what they have
witnessed, and the later economic compulsion to marry. In
puberty, tragedies are most likely to occur when the adolescents
have just escaped from the damage WTOught by infantile sex
education and now trv to shed the family fetters also.

The sexual suppression which the adults had to impose on
themselves in order to be able to tolerate the marital and familial
existence is thus extended to the children. And since they must,
for economic reasons, later sink back into the familial situation,
the sexual suppression is perpetuated from generation to gen-
eration.

78 THE AtTTHORITARIAN FAMH^Y

Since the compulsive family, economically and ideologically, is
part and parcel of authoritarian society, it would be utterly naive
to expect tliat its effects could possibly be eradicated within this
societv. Ill addition, these effects are in the family itself and are,
bv wav of unconscious mechanisms, inextricably anchored in
each indi\ iduab

In addition to the direct sexual inhibition resulting from the
attachment to tlie parents, we have the guilt feelings due to tlie
enoiinous hatred which accumulates during all the years of li\ ing
in the familial situation.

If this hatred remains coiiscious. it may become a powerful
individual revolutionarv force; it Mill cause the indi\idual to
break family ties and may become the motor power for actions
against the conditions which created the hatred.

If, on the other hand, the hatred is repressed, it develops into
the opposite traits of blind loyalty and infantile obedience. Such
traits arc bound to become severe handicaps if such a person, for
some reason, joins a liberal movement. Sucli a person may be in
fav^or of complete freedom Init may send his children to Sunday
school and may himself not give up membership in the church
because “he couldn’t do such a thing to his dear old parents.” He
wall show all the signs of indecision and lack of independence,
due to his fixation to the family. He will not be a fighter for
freedom.

The identical family situation, of course, may also produce
the "‘revolutionary for neurotic reasons.” He is often found among
middle-class intellectuals. The guilt feelings attached to liis
revolutionary feelings make him a doubtful asset to a revolution-
arv movement.

Familial sex education is bound to damage the individual’s
sexuality. If one or the other succeeds, in spite of everything, in
fighting through to a healthy sex life, it usually takes place at the
expense of the family ties.

Tlie repression of the sexual needs creates a general weakening
of intellectual and emotional functioning; in particular, it makes
people lack independence, will-power and critical faculties.

THE TRIANGIJE STRUCTUBE

Autlioritarian society is not concerned about “morality per se.”
Rather, the anchoring of sexual morality and the changes it
brings about in the organism create that specific psychic struc-
ture which forms the rnass-psychological basis of any authori-
tarian social order.’ The vassal-structure is a mixture of sexual
impotence, helplessness, longing for a Fiihrcr, fear of authority,
fear of life, and mysticism. It is characteried by devout loyalty
and simultaneous rebellion. Fear of sexuality and sexual hvpocrisy
characterize the “Babbitt” and his milieu. People with such a
structure arc incapable of democratic living. Their structure
nullifies all attempts at establishing or maintaining organizations
run along truly democratic principles. They fonn the mass-
psychological soil on which the dictatorial or bureaucratic tend-
encies of their democratically elected leaders can develop.

The political function of the family, then, is twofold:

1. It reproduces itself by crippling people sexually. By per-
petuating itself, the patriarchal family also perpetuates sexual
repression with all its results: sexual disturbances, neuro.ses,
p.sychoses, perversions and sex crimes.

2. It creates the individual who is forever afraid of life and
of authority and thus creates again and again the possibility
that masses of people can be governed by a handful of powerful
individuals.

Thus the familv gains for the conservative individual its
peculiar significance as a fortress of that social order in which
he believes. It is for this rea.son tliat the family is one of the
most keenly defended institutions in conserxative sexology.
For it does “guarantee the maintenance of the state and of so-
ciety”— in the conservative, reactionary sense. The evaluation of
the family thus becomes the keystone for the evaluation of the
general nature of different kinds of social order.

1 C/. J)iu< Einhruch ukr Siixu \lmoral, where this is historically proved.

Chapter VI

THE PROBLEM OF PUBERTY^

In no other field has conservative ideology been able to influ-
ence sexology as deeply as in the sexual problem of adolescenc e.
The essence of all treatises on the subject is the jump from the
finding that puberty is essentially the reaching of sexual maturity
to the demand that adolescents should live in sexual abstinence.
Wliatever the terms in which this demand is couched, in whatev er
wav it may be rationalized, by alleged biological arguments as
that of “not yet achieved maturity’' before the age of 24 (Gruber),
or by recourse to ethical, cultural or “hygienic" reasons, none of
the authors known to me has hit upon the idea that the sexual
misery of youth is basically a social problem, that it would not
exist but for the demand for sexual abstinence made by conserva-
tive society. In trying to justify this social demand biologically,
culturally or ethicallv% its proponents get into the most absurd
contradictions.

1. THE coNFLierr of puberty

All the phenomena of the conflict of puberty and the neurosis
of puberty derive from one fact. This is tlie conflict between the
fact that an adolescent, at about the age of 15, reaches sexual
maturity, i.e., experiences the physiological necessity of sexual
intercourse and the capacity to procreate or bear children, and
the other fact of being economically and structurally incapable
of creating the legal framework demanded by society for sexual
intercourse, i.e., marriage. This is the basic difliculty. There are
others in addition, such as the sex-negative upbringing of the
child which in turn is part of the whole system of conservative

1 C/. Reich, Der sexuelle Kampf der Jugend.

THE CONFLICT OF PUBERTY

sexual order. In primitive matriarchal societies, sexual misery of
youth is unknown. On the contrary, all reports are to the effect
that puberty rites introduce adolescents to a full sex life imme-
diately on reaching maturity; that in many of these societies there
is much emphasis on sexual happiness; that puberty rites are a
great social event; that many societies not only do not hinder the
sex life of adolescents, but further it in every way possible, e.g.,
by providing special houses to which adolescents move after
having reached sexual maturity." Even in those primitive societies
where the institution of strict monogamous marriage is already
established, the youth, from puberty until marriage, have, never-
theless, complete freedom of sexual intercourse. None of the
reports points to the occunence of sexual misery among adoles-
cents or suicides among them because of frustrated love. In these
societies, the conflict between sexual maturity and lack of genital
gratification does not exist. This is the basic difference between
primitive and authoritarian society. In the latter, it is true,
puberty rites still exist, in the form of various ecclesiastical rites
(confirmation, etc.), but not only with complete camouflaging
of tlieir true nature, but. on the contrary, for the purpose of
exercising the exact opposite influence on youth.

The most clearly defined expression of adolescent misery is
masturbation. Except for pathological cases, it is nothing but the
substitute for lacking sexual intercourse. As simple as this fact is,
I have as yet not found it stated in any sociological treatise.
Perhaps I have overlooked one. The point is that this simple fact
is kept so carefully hidden tliat it is possible to overlook it. In the
sexological treatises, tlie puberty conflict is defined not as ma-
turity— no sexual intercourse, but as maturity— no possibility of
marriage. Masturbation continues to be condemned by the church
and by moralistically prejudiced and sexologically ignorant physi-
cians. True, in recent years it has frequently been stated that the

“Such peoples quietly let their children satisfy their hardly awakened instincts
with a freedom which we ourselves would call impudent indecency' (freche Unzucht),
while the adults regard it as ‘play’ . . . Among many primitive societies, boys and
girls meet each other with the most naive affection.’* (Ploss-Bartels, Das Weib, 1902.)

THE PBOBLEM OF PUBERTY

fight against masturbation only increases the misery by intensify-
ing the pathogenic guilt feelings. Yet, such knowledge— with the
exception of some popular wTitings by authors like Max Hodann
—remained buried in scientific treatises. The masses of adolescents
have never heard about it.

Psychoanal)’tic investigation of the unconscious aspects of the
pubert}' conflict showed, in brief, a reactivation of early infantile
incestuous desires and sexual guilt feelings; these guilt feelings
are attached to the unconscious phantasies and not the mas-
turbatory act itself. Orgasm research has provided a correction of
psychoanalytic findings: it is not the incest phantasies which
cause masturbation, but the sexual excitation due to the increased
activity of the genital apparatus. The sexual stasis causes the old
incest phantasy to be revived; the phantasy does not cause tlie
masturbatory activity, though it determines the form and content
of tire psychic experience accompanying the masturbatory act.
This, and only this, explains the fact that it is exactly at the time
of sexual maturity that the incest phantasies reappear, and not
earlier or later.

The puberty conflict, then, represents a regression to more
primitive, infantile forms and contents of sexuality. To the extent
to which this regression is not the result of a pathological infan-
tile fixation, it is the result exclusively of the social negation of
genital gratification in the sexual act at the time of sexual ma-
turity. There are two possibilities: Either the adolescent enters
puberty incapable of finding a sexual partner, as a result of his
early sexual development; or the social frustration of sexual
gratification forces him into masturbation phantasies and with
that into the pathogenic situation of infantile conflict. Needless
to say, these two situations are not basically different, for the
former also is nothing but the result of a sex-suppressive infantile
situation. The only difference is that in the first case the social
barrier to sexuality has made itself felt fully in childhood, in the
latter case not until puberty. It would be more correct to say
tliat the two inhibitions of sexual development, the infantile one
and that at puberty, meet and reinforce each other in that the

THE CONFLICT OF PUBERTY

infantile inhibition creates the fixation to which tlie later social
inhibition in puberty makes the individual regress. The more
severe the infantile damage to sexuality, the less chance has tlie
adolescent to take up a normal sex life, that is, the more effective
is the social barrier to adolescent sexual intercourse.

The guilt feeling with masturbation is so much more intense
than with sexual intercourse because it is heavily burdened with
incest phantasies, while gratifying sexual intercourse makes incest
phantasies superfluous. If there is a strong fixation to infantile
objects, tlie sexual act is disturbed also, and the guilt feelings are
no less intense than with masturbation. One sees again and again
how satisfying sexual intercourse relieves the sexual guilt feel-
ings. Since, other things being equal, masturbation never pro-
vides the same gratification as sexual intercourse, it is always
accompanied by more guilt feeling than the sexual act. There are
all kinds of transitions between tlie extreme type of adolescent
who is completely incapable of taking tlie step from his infantile
parental fixation to a real sex life and the other type who manages
this step without difficulty.

The first type represents the ideal of the “good'" youngster, who
is attached to his family, who gives in to all the demands made
by his parents as the representatives of conservative society; he
is the good pupil according to reactionarv standards, modest,
without ambition, submissive. This type later on forms the elite
of the resigned marital partners and uncritical political followers.
He is also the t^•pe who provides the main quota of neurotics.

The second type, which is apt to be classed as antisocial, is
basically rebellious, ambitious, averse to the parental home and
the demands of its narrow milieu, provides among the workers
the revolutionary element. In many strata of the middle classes
this type is represented by psychopaths and impulsive characters
who are apt to deteriorate socially unless they establish contact
with a social movement, because otherwise they get into con-
flicts which are insoluble within their own milieu. Since they are
of more than average intelligence and capable of intense feelings,
their teachers, who are geared to the “good” ones and tliose of

THE PROBLEM OF PUBERTY

below average intelligence, do not know what to do with them.
They are apt to be called “morally insane” (the yardstick being
reactionary “morals”) even if they commit nothing worse than
fulfilling the natural function of their sexuality. But since tliis,
under the conditions of sexual living in our society, of necessity
fringes on the criminal, such adolescents are, for purely social
reasons, much exposed to “delinquency.” We agree here fully
witli Lindsey^ who states:

In general I find that tlicre are several types of youth who are
unlikely to get into trouble. First, there is the type that lacks energy,
self confidence, and initiative. One characteristic of most of the boys
and girls who get into diSiculties is that they have just tliose qualities,
and are all the more worth saving on that account. It is not always
true that the boy or girl who never is willful or troublesome lacks
energj'^ and character, but it is quite likely to be so. Consistently
high marks in deportment in school, especially for a boy, may merely
mean that he lacks courage and energy, and perhaps health, and is
restrained, not by morality but by fear, for “morality” doesn't play
much part in the reactions of the normal lad— not if he is the healthy
young animal he should be. He ought to be about as unconscious of
his soul as he is of his breathing, or any other vital thing about him.

( “Rp:volt,” p. 94. ) .

2. SOCIAL DEMAND AND SEXUAL REAIJTY

Three questions regarding adolescent sexuality require clarifi-
cation:

1. What demands does autlioritarian society make on the
adolescent, and what are the reasons for these demands?

2. What does adolescent sex life between tlie ages of 14 and
18 really look like?

3. What are the ascertained facts regarding the consequences
of a) masturbation, b) abstinence, and c) sexual intercourse
in adolescents?

In formulating “ethical norms” for sexual living, reactionary

a I he REvof.T OF Modeien Yoinii. By Judge Ben B. Lindsey and Wainvviight Evans.
New York; Boni & Liveright, 1925. Hereafter referred to as “Rjevolt,"

SOCIAL DEMAND AND SEXUAL REALITY

society demands of tlic adolescent absolute chastity before mar-
riage. It condemns sexual intercourse and masturbation alike.
(We are speaking here not of individual writers but of the
general ideological atmosphere). Science, to the extent to which
it is— though completely unconsciously-influenced by reaction-
ary ideology, formulates theses which are to give this ideology a
solid and scientific basis. Very frequently it does not even do
tliat, but simply keeps pointing to the famous ‘ 'moral nature” of
man. In doing so, it forgets about the very point of view of which
it keeps reminding its ideological opponents, namely, that the
legitimate task of science is only that of describing facts, without
evaluation, and of explaining these facts as to their causality.
Where it goes beyond the attempts to justify the social demands
by moralistic arguments, it employs a method which is objectivelv
much more dangerous, namely, the method of camouflaging
moralistic ^iewpoints by pseudoscientific theses. Morality is
being "scientifically” rationalized.

Thus, for example, the statement is made tliat the ahstinerirce
of adolescents is necessary in the interest of social and cultural
achievewent. This statement is based on Freud's theory that the
social and cultural achicA^ements of man derive their energv from
sexual energies which were diverted from their original goal to
a "higher” goal. This theory is known as that of "sublimation.”
It has been badly misinterpreted in that sexual gratification and
sublimation were made into a rigid and absolute antithesis. The
question is, concretely: wliat kind of sexual activity^ and gratifica-
tion, and sublimation of what sexual dri\ es?

It does not take more than casual observation to realize the
fallacy of the argument that abstinence is necessary for social
development. It is argued that sexual intercourse of youtli would
decrease their acliievements. The fact is— and all modern sexolo-
gists agree in this— that all adolescents masturbate. That alone
disposes of this argument. For, could we assume that sexual inter-
course would interfere with social achievement while masturba-
tion does not? What is the basic difference between masturbation
and sexual intercourse? Is not, finally, conflict-laden masturba-

86 THE PROBLEM OF PUBERTY

tion infinitely more harmful than an orderly sex life? A hopeless
confusion of argumentation! Unless one distinguishes satisfactory
and unsatisfactory sex life, one is incapable of seeing its various
connections with social achievement and sublimation. Why does
such a gap exist heic in the theory of sexuality? The reason is
obvious. It exists because filling this gap would lead to the
loosening of one after the other of the rivets which hold together
the complicated and clever structure of reactionary ideology.

If the most important argument for adolescent chastity were
officially invalidated, \x)uth might get ideas into their heads and
might proceed to activities which, though in no way dangerous
to tlieir health and their sociality, might constitute a danger to
the continued existence of the authoritarian family and its insti-
tution of compuisixe marriage. We shall demonstrate the con-
nection between the demand for adolescent chastity and marital
moralitv elsewhere on the basis of factual material.

Note, what does adolescent sex life look like in reality? Cer-
tainly not as morality demands it to be. Unfortunately, there are
no exact statistics available. However, (|uc.stionnaircs, the expe-
riences in sex hygiei)e clinics, the questions asked by adolescents
in meetings on sexual hygiene, and general sex-economic investi-
gations leave no doubt about the correctness of eertain general
observations. Complete abstinence, i.e., no sexual activity of any
kind, hardly ever occurs in adolescent boys; if it docs occur, it is
in cases of severe neurotic inhibition. In girls abstinence may be
somewhat more frequent, but the findings in this respect are all
too unreliable. There is no doubt, however, about this: sexual
behavior which could be fustifiably called abstinence is so ex-
tremely rare that in a practical way it does not count at all.

In reality, all kinds of sexual practices are indulged in which
may give the appeaiance of abstinence. One sees men as well as
women who have been masturbating for years without knowing
it. In women, masked masturbation frequently takes place by
pressing the thighs together; riding bicycles or motorcycles is a
frequent occasion of unconscious masturbation. Sexual day-
drean)s, even without corresponding masturbatory activity, are

SOCIAL DEMAND AND SEXUAI. REALITY 87

full masturbation psychically, at least with regard to its harmful-
ness. Sexual daydreamers wdio do not masturbate will assert that
they live in abstinence. In a certain sense they are right: they are
abstinent with K^gard to gratification^ but not with regard to
stimulation,

a) Workers’ youth.

Without exception, tliere is a great hesitation among the
youngsters to talk with their leaders about sexual matters. It is
significant that even among themselves they do not dare to discuss
them in a serious manner. On the other hand, sex is constantly
talked about in the form of dirty jokes and smutty language; the
whole adolescent atmosphere reeks with sexualit\\ A great many
general “cuss’' words are used to express things sexual.

Evenings arranged for talks on sex information in workers’
organizations serve onlj' too often the purpose of confirming the
youngsters in their abstinence. Rarely does one sec people with
a clear-cut sexual policy who present to the youngsters their
central problem correctly. In broaching the problem of sexuality,
all depends on how it is done. Fii*st, one must not betray even
the slightest trace of embarrassment or sex-negative attitude;
second, one must talk in an absolutely straightforward manner;
and third, experience shows that the burning interest really does
not come out into the open until one lets the audience ask their
questions in writing. Under those conditions, there are hardly
any youngsters who do not ask questions after a talk.

In spite of this attitude among adolescents, sexual intercourse
is common, among agricultural youth as early as 13, among the
workers’ youth at about 15.

Among agricultural youth there is the common custom of tlie
girl waiting in front of a dancing place until a boy takes her in
to dance. After the dance, during which sensual behavior is quite
open, he takes her out beliind a hedge where they have inter-
course. Contraception is as good as iiiiknown; the common prac-
tice is withdrawal, and abortion (by a quack, of course) is of
frequent occurrence.

THE PROBLEM OF PUBERTY

The urban workers’ youtli is generally informed about contra-
ceptives, but make remarkably little use of this knowledge. The
youth organizations and parties in pre-fascist Germany and Austria
paid no attention to the problem of contraception; the majority of
the higher party officials even had a negati\'e attitude toward it.

Many } Oulhs and youth leaders, therefore, tried to take matters
into dieir own hands and organized meetings and talks on the
problem. Soon the^’ met the greatest obstacle: the parents. It was
a typical occurrence that even parents w ho belonged to political
organizations prohibited their grown ciiildren from going to meet-
ings of their organization when they lieard that“sucii things” were
going to be discussed. The same thing was true w'hen they sensed
the beginning of pm el\' friendly relationships, even in the case of
18-year-olds. E.xperience shows, howe\cr, that the strictest par-
ents cannot maintain their attitude in the presence of a united
mass of adolescents.

Quite commonly, organizations became disrupted bv jealousy
which often resulted in physical violence. Among the youthful
fmictionaries thc’e were two t)pes. The one lived in sexual ab-
stinence; the other had a full sexual relationship. As far as the
first t)pe was concerned, everybody was aw-are of the fact that
the party work served as a substitute for sexual activity. In a
typical manner, their party activities began to slacken as soon as
they found a sexual partner. Many adolescents, as a matter of
fact, joined die organization only wdth the view of finding a sexual
partner and left after having found one.

Very frequently, a boy and a girl “go with each other” for a
long period of time, without, however, having sexual intercourse,
because, as they say, “there is no opportunity.” However, part of
the reason lies elsewhere, in inner inhibidons, such as fear of
impotence. In the girls, the fear of sexual intercourse is typical.
The boys more often urge intercourse; the girls, however, allow
all kinds of sexual play but refuse intercourse. Correspondingly,
hysterical fits and crying attacks are everyday occurrences.

Nervous disorders are a central problem of youth, more seri-
ously among the girls. Among athletic youths, sexual repression

SOCIAL DEMAND AND SEXUAL REALITY

is more marked than among the non-athletic, and athletics are
quite commonly engaged in for the conscious purpose of mas-
tering the sexual impulses.

In summer camps and student colonies also, one finds the
two typical phenomena: on the one hand far-reaching sexual
freedom, on the other liand severe conflicts vvliich often lead
to explosions disrupting the whole community life.

Girls often confess that when at home they have the most
intense longing for their boy friend or a boy friend but that
unfortunateb % when it comes to the point of actually entering
a relationship they find theinselv'es refusing it. TIk'v are unable
to make the transition from phantasy life to actual sexual
activity.

The bovs masturbate habitually, alone or mutuallv, an ac-
tivity whicli occasionally goes as far as collective excesses.
Masturbation is more common among bovs than girls.

Dancing and other parties increase the sexual tension, with-
out, however, resulting in corresponding disclnirge of tension.

Those adolescents who have mastered their internal prob-
lems sufficiently to consider taking up sexual intercourse com-
plain about the disastrous lack of room facilities. During the
warm seasons, they hav^e intercourse out of doors, while in
winter they suffer tremendously from the external impossibility
of being together. They lack the money to go to hotels; it
hardly ever happens that a youngster has a room of his own;
and the parents object strenuously to their being together at
home. This leads to serious conflicts and to unhygienic modes
of sexual intercourse (in corridors, dark comers, etc.)

The main difficulty lies in the fact that the whole atmosphere
of the workers’ youtli is pervaded by sexual tension while die
majority of adolescents arc both too much inhibited emotion-
ally and hemmed in bv external difficulties to find a wav out.

- -

Parents, party leadership and the whole social ideology are
against them, while at the same time tlieir more or less collec-
tive living tends to force them in the direction of breaking
through the established sex barriers.

THE PROBLEM OF PUBERTY

A tvpical illustration is a workers’ youth group in Berlin
with which I had the closest contact. They were about 60 in
number, between the ages of 14 and 18, predominantly boys.
Here also, se.xuality was a favorite theme, but mostly in the
form of jokes, mainly about se.xual intercourse, less about
masturbation. They would tease a boy when he was observed
“going with” a girl. Most of them had sexual intercourse, and
partners were changed rather fre()uentl\'. Sexual intercourse
was not taken \'erv serioush'. and there were no serious con-

j * ■

flicts with the exception of a few dramatic cases of jealousy
which led to physical violence. There were ne\ er any excesses
or public ‘"orgies.” Sexual intercourse usually took place diu'ing
night parties, but frequenth^ also on day parties out of doors;
nobody paid much attention when a boy and a girl occasion-
ally would ‘"disappear,” Little was heard of masturbation or
homosexual activities. But tlie boys— not so much the girls—
liked to talk to each other about their experiences. When I
asked a young girl who had worked as a functionary in the
group, why sexuality was not being taken seriously and always
talked about jocularly, she said: “How could it be otherwise?
Education says it’s all bad, but, after all, one has to talk about
it and so it comes out in jokes.”

The pessary was little known and used. The most common
practice was withdrawal or the condom. Quite generally, the
condom was considered an expensive luxury (a condom cost
about 30 to 50 pfennig).

The work for the party was often disturbed by sexual con-
flicts. Boys or girls would be accused of having joined the
party simply because of their respective partner. Girls, in par-
ticular, often stayed only because their bov friends belonged.
A girl functionary said that tliat was onlv because the ado-
lescents did not know their own minds with regard to their
sexuality; to repress sexuality, she said, would be evem worse,
but she thought that all this would not be so important if
education were different and one could talk openly and seri-
ously about these problems. In winter, she said, the lack of

SOCIAL DEMAND AND SEXXTAL REALITY

rooms where they could have intercourse was in itself a
serious problem: all adolesceiits sulTered from it severely.

I know only tlie Atistrian and German workers' youth well.
Chi tlie l)asis of many years’ experieiKc^ I can [issert tliat, with
small diflerenees, conditions are eciuall\' liopeless everywhere,
disastrous to health and the development of social responsi-
bility. In 1934, tlie National Socialist Go\ernment prohibited
tlie communal liikinu and staving overnight of male and female
youtli. Nobod}^ dared lo take this up in the interest of youth.

I have no doul^t that sexual living conditions are dreadful in
all eoTis(M*vativ(' countries: tin’s l^elief was reinforced by reports
I had from England, Ilurniarv, A^inerica and other countries.

The most al)j('ct misery youth has to suffer comes from the
malicious gossiping of old spinsters and sexually unsatisfied
men and women in small towns and the country. This makes
it comp1et(‘1y impossible for youth to establish a love relation-
sliip, e\en if they were psychically capable of doing so. The
])ored()m of tlie people creates an enormous lasci\4ous curiosity
and a maliciousness wliich leads to many suicides. The picture
of sucli x’outli is desperate. \^4ien I lived in exile in Malmo, I
had enougli leisure to get more than a glimpse of it. Every eve-
ning between 8 and 11, the youth of the town walked up and
down Main Street. Boys and girls kept separate; usually 3 or 4
girls walked togetlier, and 3 or 4 boys together. Tlie boys made
jokes and looked fresh and embarrassed at the same time; the
girls giggled at each other. Occasionally there would be some
petting somewhere in a corridor. Culture? Breeding gi*ounds
for fascist mentality, when boredom and sexual rottenness are
met by National Socialist fanfare. But there are no organizations
which would attempt to improve this situation.

h) Upper iniddle class youth.

Now let us tum to Lindseys report on the sex life of upper
middle class )outh in America. The breakthrough of genital
sex life in the schools was such as to force tlie authorities to take
steps. Lindsey WTites:

THE PROBLEM OF PUBERTY

Likewise, at Phillips Academy, another boys’ school of the first rank,
it was found necessary a few years back to forbid dancing at the
school because of the license that went with it. This incident likewise
received wide newspaper publicity. Alfred E. Stearns, Principal of
Phillips Academy, said in an article in the Boston Globe that measures
which had previously been taken had included the appointment of
student and faculh' committees charged with the following duties:

“1. To sen e as police and to remonstrate with, if not actually eject
from the floor, couples who dance in an indecent manner.

2. To prevent the admission of girls of questionable character.

3. To prevent drinking, by boys and girls alike, on the floor and
elsewhere.

4. To eject tliose found to be under the influence of liquor and to
prevent the admission of those in like condition.

5. To supen ise the girls' dressing room for the purpose of prevent-
ing extravagant dress and indecent exposu^^ drinking, and loose talk.

6. To insist that visiting girls should be accompanied by chaperones;
to prevent auto 'joy rides’ during the dancing.

7. To prevent the parking of automobiles in close proximity to the
dance hall.

8. To prevent other and outside gatherings exempt from the control
and supervision of the main dance.

9. To see that girls are promptly and properly returned to their
rooms at the close of the dance.”

I give this list at length because it leaves no doubt of the sort of
conditions that existed in a school second to none in tliis country for
the quality of its students. They are for the most part boys drawn
from eastern homes of considerable wealth and culture. They have
behind them first-rate traditions and training.

(“Revolt,” p. 52)

Instead of being surprised and morally indignant about the
fact that such conditions are found in adolescents from ‘‘eastern
homes of considerable wealth and culture,” we should realize
that such conditions do exist in spite of all external puritanism
and antisexual education; only their forms appear as the opposite
of antisexual morality. Wliat interests us here is not the fact
that tlie suppressed sexuality breaks through in spite of the moral

SOCIAL DEMAND AND SEXUAL REALITY

demands; that goes witliout saying. What interests us is the
influence of sexual morality on the forms of the sexual activities.
It will be readily seen that these forms correspond neither to
sexual morality nor to sexual economy; rather, they are a com-
promise between the two, at the expense of botli. Lindsey writes:

The first item in tlic testimony of these high-school students is that
of all the youth who go to parties, attend dances, and ride together
in automobiles, more than 90 per cent indulge in hugging and kissing.
This does not mean that every girl lets any boy hug and kiss her, but
that she is hugged and kissed. And evidently this 90 per cent estimate
does not apply to those of our young people who lack the biological
energy and the social urge which leads the most worthwhile portion
of our youth to express their natural instincts in these social diversions.
Another way of putting it would be to say that what leads these
youngsters into trouble is an overflowing of high spirits and abounding
energy which only needs more wise direction.

The testimony I receive regarding this estimated 90 per cent is
practically unanimous. If it be true, it means that these young people
hai'e more or less definitely come to the conclusion that this minor
form of sex experience may be legitimately indulged in. Also that a
very large number do indulge in it, without permitting the diversion
to (‘xceed certain rather clearly defined limits.

Some girls insist on this kind of thing from boys they go with, and
are as aggressive, in a subtle way, in their search for such thrills as
are the boys themselves.

1 recall one very beautiful and spirited girl who told me that she
had refused to go out with a certain boy because he lacked pep, and
didn't know how, as she put it, to ‘1o\'e me up.”

“Do all the boys do such things nowadays?” I asked.

“Of course they do,” she retorted. “If they don't there is sometliing
wrong with them.”

(“Revolt,” p. 56f.)

If Lindsey speaks of "overflowing of high spirits and abound-
ing energy’" he is right only insofar as the "abundance of energy”
corresponds in part to the more lively sexuality of adolescents
and in part is the result of the contiadictory ch^iracter of their

TIIE PROBLEM OF PUBERTY

sexual activity. We Iiear that the adolescents consider hugging
and kissing, i.e., the preliminary sexual activities, as something
that mav be 'legitimately” indulged in; also, that, on the other
hand, they do not “exceed certain rather clearly defined limits.”
We can express ourselves less cautiously. What this means is
tliat the adolescents practice all kinds of sexual stimulation,
while most of tliem do not proceed to the sexual act. Why, we
must ask, do thev allow themselves everything up to but not the
sexual act itself? The answer is simple: official morality ex-
plicitly designates sexual intercourse as the worst sexiud activity.
By engaging in petting, the adolescents show their emancipa-
tion; by refusing sexual intercourse, they show their obedience
to conservative morality. Here, marriageability on the part of the
girl is also a consideration, because virginity still draws a pre-
mium on the marriage market. Nevertheless, as Lindsey writes,

at least 50 per cent of those who begin with hugging and kissing do
not restrict themselves to that, but go further, and indulge in otlier sex
liberties which, by all the conventions, are outrageously improper.

("Revolt,'* p. 59)

Only 15 per cent succeed in establishing sexual intercouse. Dur-
ing 1920 and 1921, Lindsey had to deal with 769 girls between
the ages of 14 and 17 because of sex delinquency. Tliat the
number was not much larger was only due to the limitations of
his small staff. According to Lindsey, 90 per cent of tlie boys
have “sexual experiences” before they leave school, i.e., before
the age of 18. The girls have given up much of their reserve.

One high-school boy with whom 1 recently talked admitted that he
had had relations with fifteen girls of high-school age, about half of
them still in school. He had chosen them in preference to “chippies,**
or common street girls. I verified this confession, talked with prac-
tically all of these girls, and found that they were good, average girls.
His experience with each of them had been on only one or two occa-
sions. The girls, with one or two exceptions, were not given to promis-
cuity, and I believe most of them have turned out well.

SOCIAL DEMAND AND SEXUAL REALITY

A Red Light District in Denver niiglit have saved those girls from
these experiences, but it would not have sa\ ed the boy— nor the pros-
titutes, who have as good a right to be saved as anybody else.

There can be no doubt, 1 think, that since the Red Light Districts
were abolished far more “good’' girls tlian formerly ha^^e had sex
experiences. But, curious as it may seem, fewer girls have been
“ruined” and “lost.”

(“Revolt,” p. 70)

Here, perhaps without being aware of it, Lindsey expresses
the basic secret of prostitution and the solution brought about
by the sexual crisis: Decline of prostitution as a result of the
inclusion of female youth into sexual life.

This active and aggressively inquiring attitude of mind on the part
of girls has of late years become general rather than exceptional. Also,
it is more and more unconcealed. The reason is that social and eco-
nomic conditions have placed these girls more on a level with men.
Many of them, when they leave school, take positions in which they
inaktf more money than the boys they go with. The result is tl)at many
a youth finds himself subject to ratlier contemptuous inspection by
the young woman of his choice.

(“Revolt,” p. 121)

1 have at hand certain figures which indicate with certainh' that for
every case of sex delinquency discovered, a veiy large number com-
pletely escape detection. For instance, out of 495 girls of liigh-school
age— though not all of them were in high school— who admitted to me
that they had had sex experiences with bovs, onlv about 25 became
pregnant. That is about 5 per cent, a ratio of one in twenty. The others
avoided pregnancy, some by luck, others because they had a knowl-
t'dge of more or less effective contraceptive methods— a knowledge,
by the way, which I find to be more common among them tlian is
generally supposed.

Now tlie point is this: First, that three-fourths of that list of nearly
500 girls came to me of their own accx)rd for one reason or another.
Some were pregnant, some were diseased, some were remorseful,
some wanted ajunsel, and so on. Second, the thing that always brought
them to me was their acute need for help of some kind. Had they not

THE PROBLEM OF PUBERTY

felt that need, they would not have come. For every girl who came for
help, there must have been a great many, a majority, who did not
come because they did not want help, and therefore kept their own
counsel.

In other words, that 500— covering a period of less than two years—
represented a small group, drawn from all levels of society, that didn’t
know the ropes, and got into trouble of one kind or another; but there
was as certainly a much larger group that did not know the ropes, and
never came around at all. Mv own opinion is that for every girl who
comes to me for help because she is pregnant, or diseased, or in need
of comfort, there are many more who do not come because they escape
scot free of consequences, or else because circumstances are such that
they can meet the situation themselves. Hundreds, for instance, resort
to the abortionist. I don’t guess this, 1 know it.

(“Revolt,” p. 64f. )

What are Lindseys conclusions from his findings, crushing as
they are from the standpoint of conservative morality?

I need not say that this is a difficult and dai)g(TOus problem. It is
one which cannot be met by denunciation or watc hfulness on the part
of adults. It can be met only by a voluntarily adopted code of manners
—by genuine intenial restraints approved and adopted by the young
people themselves. Such a code can be called into free and spon-
taneous action only by (education of the frankest and most thorough-
going sort.

("Revolt,” p. 59f.)

What is this code of manners? What, concretely, has Lindsey
in mind? How are such ‘genuine inner restraints” to be achieved?
No inhibitions could be more “genuine” than those which are
dinned into youth everywhere by the parental home, the school
and the church; for there are no other inhibitions than those
coming from the environment, and nature knows of no “moral
law.” And, what is the result of centuries of suppressing adoles-
cent sexuality? Precisely what Lindsey himself describes.

Lindsey gets into insoluble contradictions. On the one hand,
he establishes facts which show the decline of conservative mo-

SOCIAL DEMAND AND SEXUAL REALITY

rality among adolescents. On the other hand, he arrives, from
these very facts, at demands which mean nothing more nor less
than a re-establishment of this same morality, thougli he himself
finds that this morality is declining and partly approves of this
fact. In spite of everything, he cannot free himself of the ideology
of compulsive monogamous marriage and the demand for chas-
tity on the part of the girl. Thus he writes, for example:

Years ago I liad in my charge a girl of 17 who, when I became
acquainted with her five years before, had already had relations with
several school boys. Immoral? Bad? Poppycock! She was ignorant.
One talk with me end(‘d it; she became one of the finest young women
ill Denver. No casual male would dare cross her path. She is very
beautiful, has a remarkable mind, and some time ago was married to
a youth who, I trust, deserves her.

(“Revolt,” p. 116)

What all this means is that Lindsey only mitigates conservative
moralistic evaluation; he does not take a stand against it; he does
not draw, from all his facts, the conclusion of its fiasco and
definite decline. The older generation said the girl was “immoral,
bad”; Lindsey says she is merely “ignorant.” I doubt that she was
ignorant. She knew very well what she was doing; but she landed,
inevitably, in conventional marriage as a girl in conservative
society should. In doing so, she did not become more ‘Tenowing”
in the sense of sexual knowledge; Lindsey only made her more
“knowing” with regard to the results which tlireatened should
she fail to conform to conservative sexual mores. In summary,
then, Lindsey finds:

1. That social yardsticks change:

To say that that happened when this kind of folly was at its height
and that the hysteria has since died down—that it was therefore just a
passing brain storm on the part of youth after the war, is nonsense.
Concealment today is more skillful and more general, because die
thing isn t new any longer; but if the adult population of this country
think the relative calm on the surface means that there is nothing

THE PROBLEM OF PUBERTY

happening any more beneath tlie surface, they are living in a fools
paradise. Youth is shrewder, more sophisticated, more contemptuous
of its elders, and more coldly bent on following its own path than it
ever was before. Nor does that necessarily imply that it is wholly
an evil path, nor that they arc' all, as the saying goes, hell bent for
destruction. It does mean that tliey are changing our social code; and
in my judgment they are going to win through, if not with us, then
without us.

("Revolt,” p. 53f.)

2. That the economic inhibitions lose their strength, espe-
cially with female youth:

The external restraints, economic restraints that were once so potent,
luive gone ncn cr to return: and the sole qncsilon now is hoio soon and
how effeefiveh/ will the internal restraints of a voluntarily acccjrted
code, which alone can keep people i:,oin^ sirai^it, take their place.
I think this is already happening. 1 don’t think this younger genera-
tion is just a blindfolded bull in a china shop.

("Revolt,” p. 54)

3. That the youth of today is “relatively the most normal and
the most sane generation the world has ever seen.” (“Revolt,”
p. 54.)

4. That the replacement of the brotliel by girls of the same
class is better and more moral:

For in the past, notwithstanding the Red Light District and its
ruined women, the boys who helped by their patronage to make tlrat
District possible stood excellent chances of becoming good citizens,
husbands and fatht;r.s; but the girl denizens of that world did not. Thus
these new conditions, in spite of the increase of sex experiences among
girls, as compared with the days of the Red Light Distric:t, would
seem to have brought with them less that is destructive to woman-
hood than did the old order with its stricter conventions, its savage
punishments, and its hypocritical double standard of “morality.” I
don’t say, mind you, that the new order needs no mending; I merely
insist that it contains more essential morality than did the old; and

SOCIAL DEMAND AND SEXUAL REALITY 99

that, all calamity howlers to the contrary notwithstanding, we have
not gone backward.

(“Revolt,” p. 72)

5. That the girls of today “know the male animal”:

Once a “nice” girl would have considered sucii advances an insult.
Now, though she may refuse, she is not so likely to be offended. She
is too sophisticated for that, and knows enough about the male animal
to understand that his impulse is a normal one. Whether such frank>
ness between boys and girls is a gain or the reverse I shall not try to
consider at this point. It is, however, quite' in keeping with the very
evident det(‘nnination of tlu'se young j^eople to call a spade a spade;
and we adults have it to reckon with, whether we like it or not.

(“Revolt,” p. 67)

6. “Sex is simply a biological fact. It is as much so as the appe-
tite for food. Like the appetite for food it is neither legal nor
illegal, moral nor immoral.” (“Revolt,” p. 127.)

In his conclusions, however, Lindsey does not inquire into
the reasons of tin? failure of the sexual re\ olution of youth, but
judges it from a moralistic viewpoint:

Ry its dc'partures, cn viassc, from ancient standards, it has doubtless
achie\ed some real progress; but its individual members have simply
jump('d from oik' form of slavery into another. License is bondage;
liberty, on tlie contraiy', is a free obedienct' to laws more compelling
and difficult than human law, and far more exacting. Youth, unhelped
by any wisdom but its own, often confuses tlu‘ two.

(“Revolt,” p. 102f.)

In the “more exacting laws” we recognize the wavs and de-
mands of conservative society, in their compulsion the lack of a
social basis for a sex-economic living of > outii, tlie deteiTnination
of society not to let youth escape the clutches of the vassal fac-
tory, the authoritarian family. And conservati\c youth cannot
have “wisdom of their own,” they cannot allow themselves to
have it, because tliey are themselves materially interested in the

100

THE PROBLEM OF PUBERTY

existing social order, notvvitlistanding the fact that it is the very
social order which creates all the difficulties of their sex life.

How is it possible, one must ask, that even a man like Lindsey,
this admirable and courageous champion of youtli, is not able
to draw the inevitable conclusions; that he, too, seems to be
moralistically prejudiced and thus hampered in his fight for
youth? Perhaps we may here get a glimpse at the secret of why
conserv'ative society insists so strictly on the demand for absti-
nence, in spite of its patent fiasco. Lindsey writes:

She could live with him “in sin” later, after the marriage ceremony,
and it would be all right. Where do they get their logic? Did that
relationship really smirch and defile her, or was she at fatdt simply
because she was violating the social code? The distinction is extremely
important. Wc may admit that she was at faidt in her pre-nuptial
intimacy; but the fault lay in her violation of a social convention, and
not in a mysterious “defilement” conjured up by our tribal super-
stitions.

(“Revolt,” p. 118)

Thus, according to Lindsey, she was not “defiled” by her
premarital sexual activity, but slie “violated the social code.”
The demand for chastity on the part of the girl could not possibly
be more clearly defined; She was “at fault” in having premarital
sexual intercourse. Absolutely? No, relatively. That is, relative
to the fact that conservative society, for ideological and economic
reasons, cannot sanction premarital intercourse because this
would undermine compulsive marriage and its ideology. Says
Lindsey, with regard to the rebellious girl Mary:

And yet this is by no means to say that marriage is a failure and
should go into the discard to make way for Free Love or any other
social Ism. However imperfect the institution may be we can’t do
without it. It must be preserved by means of sane and cautious
alterations in its code . . .

(“Revolt,” p. 140)

There cannot be the slightest doubt: Sexual freedom of youth

SOCIAI. DEMAND AND SEXUAL REALITY

101

means undermining marriage (in the sense of compulsive mar-
riage); sexual suppression serves the purpose of making youth
capable of this kind of marriage. This is what, in the last analysis,
all the talk about the ‘ culturar significance of marriage and of
adolescent ‘‘morality” reduces itself to. This is tlie reason— and
the sole reason— m/uy the problem of marriage cannot he dis-
cussed without the problem of adolescent sexuality, and vice
versa. Both of them are only links in the chain of conservative
ideolog)^ If the connection between the two is in any way dis-
turbed, youth is thrown into insoluble conflicts, for their sexual
problem cannot be solved without solving the marriage problem,
and this in turn not without the problems of economic independ-
ence of the woman and dijfficult problems of education and of
economics.

Yet, in spite of his reserve, Lindsey was gixx'ii the cold .shoulder.
He lost his judgeship.

The preceding passages wxtc wTitten in the summer of 1928,
about two years before tlic publication of tlie first edition of tliis
book. They formulated the result of a study of tlie sociological
links between marriage morality and the demand for adolescent
abstinence. A year later, I happened to find the statistical proof
for my conclusions, in a paper by a physician at the Venerological
Institute in Moscow.^ This paper contained statistics about the
connection between marital infidelity and the age of taking up
sexual intercourse before maiTiage. Of tliose who took up sexual
intercourse before the a^e of 17, 61. 65^ were unfaithful in mar-
riage; of those wlio began having sexual intercourse between
the ages of 17 and 21, 47.6^-; and of tliose who lived in absti-
nence beyond the age of 21, only 17.2?. The author notes:

The earlier these people, on the average, established a st xua!
relationship, the less faithful were they in marriage, the more did the\^

4 M. Barash, “Sex life of the workers of Moscow." J. of Social Hygiene 12, May
1926.

102

THE PROBLEM OF PUBERTY

tend to occasional extramarital relationships . . . Those who estab-
lished a sex life at an early age had an irregular sex life later on.

If it is true that the demand for adolescent abstinence is socio-
logically determined directly by the institution of marriage,
and indirectly by the same economic interests as official conserva-
tive sex reform itself; if, further, there is statistical ex idence for
the fact tliat early sexual hitereoiirse makes people incapable
of marriage (in the sense of conserxative marriage morality,
“one partner for life”), then the purpose of the demand for sexual
abstinence is clear. It serxes tlie purpose of creeling a sexual
structure which makes people incapable of any sex life except
that of a strictly monogamous compulsive marriage and xvhich
makes them submit weakly to the dc-mands of society.

The ensuing pages shoxv what this se.xual stnicturc is like,
what are its effects on x’outh and xvhat are the contradictions
which it creates for the marital situation.

3 . SOME MEDICAl., NON-ETIIICAL C ONSIDEHATIONS OK THE
SEX LIFE OF ^ OC ni

The adolescent has only three possibilities: ahstincnce, mas-
turbaiion (including homose.xual acti\itv and heterosexual ex-
citation), and sexual intercourse. One has to be clear as to the
viewpoint from which one discusses the problem. Here again,
there are three points of view: the etliical, the sex-economic and
tlie sociological. Ethics provide neither an access to the problem
nor a solution for it. Concretely, the problem narrows down to
the question of the sexual economy of the individual and to the
interest of society in its members.

As we have seen, authoritarian society has the greatest interest
in the suppression of adolescent sexuality. The perpetuation of
authoritarian marriage and family and the production of tlie
vassal structure require this suppression. The reactionary moral
philosopher— confusing reactionary society and human society-
thinks that human society as such would be endangered if
youth, as he puts it, were to “live ouC tlieir sexuality. But

N0N-ETMK:AL C:ONSir)F:RAlK)NS OF THE SEX IJFE OF YOUTH 103

whether this is so is precisely tlje question. The concrete question
is what social inteicsts conflict with scx^econoinic interests, in
other words, whether one interest has to he jeopardized if the
otlier is to be safeguarded. One also rniglit consider the interest
of youtli in the first place and ask what are tlie relative advan-
tages and disadvantages to tlicin of abstinence, inastur1)ation and
sexual intercourse, respective!}'.

a) Sexual abstinence in puberty.

Here, we have to examine the inanifestativons of iolal absti-
nence, because anything else comes under the lieading of mas-
turbation in a wider sense of the word.

It is an incontrovertil)le fact that, around the age of 14,
sexualitv—as a result of increased endocrine actixitv and the
maturing of the genital apparatus-enters a most acthe phase.
The sexual urge, normally, is toward sexual intercourse. If, now,
such a large numlKa* of adolescents do not have a conscious
desire for sexual intercourse, this is not, as generallv and erro-
neoush^ assumed, an expression of biological immaturit\% but
the result of education which causes even the thought of such
an action to be repressed. It is important to realize this fact if
one wants to see things as tlicv are and not as authoritarian so-
cietv and the church wish us to see them. Adolescents wlio have
freed themsebes of this repression know verv well that sexual
intercourse is wliat tluw waiit. lliis repression of sexual ideas,
particularly that of sexual intercourse, is a prerequisite of absti-
nence. The more frequent situation is perhaps that while the
idea of the sexual act is not repressed, it is divested of psychic
interest or associated with ideas of fear and disgust to such an
extent that it has no practical significance. In order to insure
abstinence, more than this is needed: the repression also of
sexual excitation. If tliat is acbc’oved, there is peace, at least for
a certain time. The adolescent is then spared the painful mas-
turbation conflict and the dangerous struggle with his environ-
ment, a struggle which is inescapable when the adolescent has

104

THE PROBLEM OF PUBERTY

a conscious and therefore unconquerable desire for sexual
intercourse.

After the first stages of puberty, most adolescents show a defi-
nite change in their attitude toward sexuality. Alter the age of
about 16 or 17, they liave a much more negative attitude toward
it. The analj'sis of tliis behax’ior shows that the striving for
pleasure has been replaced by a fear of pleasure.

They have acquired plca.mrc anxiety. This pleasure anxiety, or
fear of pleasurable excitation, is something basically different
from the fear of punishment for sexual actisities which, if in-
tense, usually is a fear of castration. The increasiuglv defensive
attitude toward sexuality is anchored in this pleasure anxiety.
This has the following reason. As a result of the chronic prohi-
bitions, the nature of .sexual excitation itself uiKlergoes an altera-
tion. Clinical e.xpericnce shows that inhibited pleasure turns
into unpleasurable or even painful genital excitation. Thus pleas-
urable excitation becomes a source of unpleusure and this forces
tire adolescent to fight against his .sexualilx- and to supprrxss it.
Every sexologically experienced physician is familiar with a
peculiar habit of adolescents: that of artificially suppressing
erections. They do this because the erection which is not fallowed
by gratification becomes painful. In girls, the fear of strong
excitation is even more marked. The excitation is experienced
as danger. The fear of punishment for sexual activitx’, aerjuired
from tlie outside, becomes anchored in this pleasure anxiety. In
this way, the adolescent very often becomes himself the advo-
cate of sexual prohibitions.

Sexual excitation without gratification can never be tolerated
for any considerable length of time. There are only two solutions:
.suppression of the sexual excitation, or gratification. The former
always leads to psychic and somatic disturbances, the latter-
in our society— to social conflicts.

Abstinence is dangerous and absolutely harmful to health. The
suppressed sexual energy expresses itself in different ways. Eitlier,
a nervous disturbance appears very soon, or tire adolescent be-
gins to indulge in daydreams; these interfere seriously with his

NON-ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF THE SEX LIFE OF YOUTH 105

work. True, those who refuse to see the connection between sexual
excitation and nervous disorders may easily say that abstinence
is not harmful or that it is practicable in most cases. They only
see that the adolescent does live in abstinence and conclude
that, therefore, it is practicable. What they overlook is that the
adolescent c*an do it only at the price of accpiiring a neurosis and
other difficulties. They may say that the neurosis is due to a
‘'neurotic constitution” or such things as the “will to power.”
They make things easy for themselves; thev spare themselves
the necessity of thinking about the difficult problem of adolescent
sexuality and that of the social order.

Many will object that not all adolescents who live in absti-
nence W'ill iininediately become neurotic. True enough, but that
does not alter tlie fact that the neurosis is bound to make its
appearance later, at a time wlicn tlie indixidual has to meet the
demands of “legal” sexual activitv. Sex-economic clinical e?xpe-
rience shows that those patients have the most unfavorable
prognosis w^ho never dared to masturbate. They suppressed their
sexuality, perhaps successfully for some time, and did not use
their sexual apparatus. ThcTi, bv the time tlie\’ reach the age
w-hen thev could engage in sexual aclhitv with the sanction of
society, the sexual apparatus refuses to function, it has l)ecome
rusty, as it wTre. But even if one knows this one is careful not to
let the adolescent know it, because what justification would tliere
be left for practising abstinence? One could no longer advocate
athletics as a wav out of the sexual miserv.

In many discussions of the masturbation problem, people
have pointed to the possibility of the diversiou of sexual energy
hy athletics. To this I have had to reply tliat while athletic ac-
tivity is tlie best way of reducing the sexual drive, a great many
athletes are so successful in this that later on they find that they
no longer have their sexuality at their disposal. One is again and
again surprised at the great number of vigorous, alhleticallv
trained individuals w^ho present serious sexual disturbances.
Their athletic activities w^ere in part a fight against their sex-
uality. Since, however, they could not spend all their sexual

106

THE PROBLEM OF PUBERTY

energies in their sport, they finally had to resort to repression
with all its inevitable results. It is true that athletics are a means
of reducing sexual excitation. But they are as incapable of solv-
ing the sex problem of youth as is any other measure which aims
at deadening sexual excitation.

If anybody who is aware of the consequences wants to kill his
sexuality, let him. We have no intention of forcing a satisfactory
sex life on anybody, but we say this: If anybody wants to live
in abstinence, at tlie risk of neurotic disease and a curtailment
of his work and happiness, let him. The others should attempt to
arrive at an orderlv, satisfactorv sex life as s()or> as the sex urge
can no longer be overlooked. It is our duty to point out the fact
that adolescent sexual abstinence results in an atrophv of sex-
uality, in its flowing back into infantile and perverse activities
and nervous disorders. Tragic are the patients who come to
seek help at the ages of 35, 40, 50 or even 60, neurotic, dis-
gruntled, lonely and sick of living. Usually, thev pride themselves
on not having "‘indulged excessively,” bv which they mean the
avoidance of masturbation and early sexual intercourse.

rhe dangers of sexual a]:)stiTieiice are very often underestimated
even by otherwise sound writers. Tin's has two main reasons.
First, tliey are ignorant of the connection between abstinence
and a sexual disturbance which may appear only much later;
second, the) lack tiie experience of the psychotherapist or sex
counsellor wljo constamily sees the connections between nervous
disturbances and sexual abstinence in great numbers of cases.
Thus, Fritz Brupbacher wrote in 1925, in ati otherwise excellent
pamphlet: "There is much philosophizing in all kinds of publica-
tions about the harm and usefulness of abstinence. He who likes
abstinence may practice it. It will do him no harm ... At anv
rate, abstinence is healthier than venereal disease.”

Later on, Brupbaclmr gave up this attitude. He had overlooked
the fact tliat a tendency to protracted abstinence is in itself
already a pathological symptom, indicating rather complete re-
pression of conscious sexual desire. It always— sooner or later—

NON-ETHICAT, CONSIDEBATIONS OF THE SEX LIFE OF YOUTH 107

damages the love life and reduces achievement in work. This is
a proved fact. To recommend abstinence to youths means laying
the basis for a neurosis which will break out sooner or later,
or at least for a diminislied joy in life and achievement in work.
Incidentally, from the point of view of psychic economy, one
would doubt wliether abstinence is healthier than venereal
disease. The latter one can get rid of if one seeks th.e proper
therapeutic help. The pathological character changes, however,
can hardly ever be completely eliminated. In addition, we do
not have as manv capable psychotherapists as would be needed
to cure the evils created by protracted abstinence. Tlie venereal
diseases, of c-ourse, sliould not be underestimated. But as a rule
they are used as a bugbear, as a means of enforcing sexual re-
pression. At any rate, the alternative is not abstinence or vene-
real disease; for disease can be avoided if one has intercourse
only with beloved partners of one’s own environment instead of
with prostitutes.

In speaking about the abstinence of adolescents, we mean
those between the ages of 15 and 18. The authoritarian demand
is for abstinence until “the closing of the epiphvses,” i.e., about
the age of 24. The following is from a column of Questions and
Answers by an individual-ps)'chological youth counsellor and
appeared in the Viennese paper Morgen on March 18, 1929:

G. Sell.— Your question deals with the problem which has been
often discussed in biological circles, that of the onset of “sexual
activities.” The Roman writer I’acitus extols the ancient Gennans for
never touching a woman before the age of 24. This should also he
the rule with us. The sexual drive, one of the most powerful in human
life, cannot he allowed to come out prematurely, and you are quite
right in seeking in sports a discharge to which you arc not yet entitled
in sexuality. If your friends, though they may be younger, act differ-
ently, they act against the laws of sexual hygiene. The famous au-
thority in the field of hygiene, Geheimrat Professor Dr. Max I'on
Gruber, has never ceased to preach, in his spirited way, that sexual
abstinence has never done anybody any harm.

108

THE PROBLEM OF PUBERTY

Is the appeal to Gruber and the ancient Germans an argu-
ment? This same Professor Gruber had gone as far as claiming
that abstinence was not only not harmful, but actually useful in
that the semen which was not spent was re-absorbed in the body
and provided a source of protein. I know of a better and more
pleasant way of getting protein: eating meat.

Among the Viennese youth counsellors was a clergyman. A 22-
vear-old girl received the following counsel from him (according
to a written report from the girl):

By way of introduction, I said I had read about the consultation
centc'r in the newspaper and that I was at the end of my rope. Dr. P.
then encouraged me to talk freely.

1 told him that my boy friend and 1 were very much in love with
each other but that for some time there had been such a tension
between us that I did not know what to do. I added that I had tri(*d
consolation in religion, but in vain.

Then Dr. P. asked me questions. How old was I? 22. How long had
I known my boy friend? 4 years. How old was he? 24. To that he
replied that he knew young people who had known each other for
8 or 9 years and who had kept themselves clean. He did not explain
what he meant by clean but added that he could well imagine two
people who loved each other veiy much and still did not have any
sexual thoughts with regard to each other.

He then asked what was the attitude of my fiance. I said that, of
course, he also suffered enormously under these conditions and 1
could no longer stand seeing him suffer so. He then asked what were
the conditions at home and 1 told liim that I could not count on any
support from there.

Dr. P. thought I ought to talk things over with my mother and try
to get married as soon as possible. In this connection he said, among
other things, that the commands of the church had a deeper meaning,
as, for example, the command. Thou shalt not be unchaste. Because,
he said, if anything happened, the child would not have a loving
family.

When I replied it would be years before I would be in a financial
position to get married and that I would not have the strength to go
on like this for so long. Dr. P. said I should not think of a year

NON-ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF TIIE SEX LIFE OF YOUITI 109

ahead, but should perscivere from day to day and steel myself. He; also
asked whether 1 met my friend alone and whether my parenls knew
about it. 1 said, yes. Whereupon he advised me to a^'oid being alone
with rny friend in order not to get into unpleasant situations and to
avoid tormenting each other.

Dr. P. tried to encourage me and said all that was needed was my
own bc'lief that I could cany on. Advising me again to get married as
soon as possible, he discharged me by saying, “God bless you.”"‘

The nature-healers, too, engage in sex counseling. This is the
prescription given to a young man of 17 who suffered from daily
seminal emissions and who consulted a nature-healer:

Three times a day a pinch of gentian powder in a wafer. In addi-
tion, cook 30 grains of cruslK'd hemp in /2 litre of milk; take 1 table-
spoon 3 or 4 times a day. In addition, take, every other day, a sitz-
bath of about 20 minutes in an infusion of calamus. In addition, have
somt'body give you a good massage*, ot the spine every evening with
the following mixture; spirit of aniica, 90 grams; spirit of lavender
and spirit of balm-mint, 4 grams each; spirit of peppeimint and
thyme, 1 gram each. Mix well.

Such and similar ridiculous “advuce” stems from the complete
helplessness of tlie youth counsellor, wluither he beliewes in the
efficacy of his remedies or not, whether he is convinced of the
futility of the demand for abstinence or not. He is, apart from
his own inhibitions, nothing but an unconscious executive organ
of the reactionary sexual order, one who will make adolescents
capable of compulsive marriage and subservience to authori-
tarian society. We shall soon show that the knowledge of the truth
does not make his situation easier by any means; on the contrary.

h) Masturbation.

Masturbation can mitigate the harmfulness of abstinence only

to a very limited degree. It can regulate the household of sexual
^ «

‘"► This servant of God and of rcatiionary morality was defended hy a “Socialist"
youth counsellor with the argument that, after all. one had to employ (tiunsellors
for religious youths also, and that could only be ministers. Such tolerance is nothing
short of touching. Only, it spells ruin for the adolescents.

110

THE PKOBLEM OF PUBERTY

energy only if it takes place without any considerable guilt feel-
ings and disturbances of the processes of sexual excitation and
sexual discharge, and only if the lack of a sexual partner is not
keenly felt. True, it can help healthy adolescents in weathering
the first storms of puberty. But since, as a result of early sexual
development, only few adolescents reach puberty witli a rela-
tively unimpaired functioning, it fulfils even this function only
in relatively few cases. Only a small minority of adolescents have
freed themselves enough from the moralistic influences of their
education to be able to masturbate without guilt feelings. As a
rule, tliey fight tlie impulse to masturbate, witli varying degrees of
success. If they do not succeed in suppressing the impulse, tliey
masturbate with tlie most severe inl)ibitions and harmful prac-
tices, such as liolding back the ejaculation. This results, at best,
in a neurasthenic disturbance. If tliey succeed in suppressing tlie
impulse, tliey fall back into the abstinence from which they tried
to save themselves by masturbation. Only now the situation has
become much worse, because sexual excitation and the phan-
tasies which were aroused in the meantime make abstinence
even more intolerable tlian before. Only few find the sex-eco-
nomic solution, tliat of sexual intercourse.

Until a very short time ago, masturbation, ejuite generally, was
a bugbcc^u*. Recently-due to the realization that the demand for
abstinence cannot ever be enforced and because masturbation
is considered the lesser evil than sexual intercourse— it has become
the fashion to call masturbation entirely harmless and natural.
This, however, is only conditionally true. True, masturbation is
better than abstinence. But in the long run it becomes unsatis-
factory and quite disturbing because soon the lack of a love
object becomes painful; furthermore, when it no longer satisfies,
it creates disgust and guilt feelings. Under these conditions-
con tinned sexual excitation plus guilt— it becomes a compulsion.
Even under the most favorable conditions it has the disadvantage
of forcing phantasy activity more and more into neurotic and
previously relinquis]»ed infantile channels, which in turn makes
repressions necessary. In this case, the danger of a neurosis in-

NON-ETHICAL C:ONSIDERATIONS OF THE SEX LIFE OF YOUTH 111

creases with the duration of the masturbatory mode of grath
ficatioii.

Most adolescents show a shy, awkward bcha\ ior. The others,
who are lively and able, are always those who have managed to
take the step from masturbation to sexual intercourse. In the
long run, masturbation also weakens realistic behavior; the fa-
cility with whicli gratification— such as it is— can be obtained
oftem paralyzes the abilitv to enter the fight for a suitable partner.

The conclusions from all this are: A cliange has occurred in
the prevailing attitude toward adolescent masturbation. Pre-
viously, the bugbear of ‘"adolescent sexual intercourse” created
the fiction that ahsiincnce was harmless or even useful. More re-
centlv, it has created the fiction that adolescent rnasturhation is
natural, completely liarmless and the solution of the puberty
problem. One like the other is an evasion of the most ticklish
question :

c) The sexual intercourse of adolescents.

This question has to be reviewed in its fundamental aspects
as well as in its concrete economic and educational aspects. Thus
far, it has been avoided in all tlie literature as if l)v common
agreement.

We have sliown that it is ihc interests of authoritarian society
which indirectly (by way of the family and marriage) cause the
restrictions of adolescent sexuality with all its misery. This re-
striction is part and parcel of the system of this society; the
attendant misery is an unintended result. This being so, a sex-
cconoinic solution is not possible within this society. This be-
comes ob\aous as soon as we examine the conditions under which
our adolescents enter tlie phase of sexual maturity, ^^'e shall
neglect here the influences of class differences and examine only
the influence of the ideological atmosphere and the social
institutions.

1. To begin with, the adolescent has to overcome a mountain
of inner inhibitions, the results of a sex-negative education. On
the average, his genitality is either altogether inliibited (tliis is

112

THE PROBLEM OF PUBERTY

true particularly of girls), or else disturbed or homosexiially de-
flected. Thus, purely from the point of view of his inner make-up,
he is not equal to the task of establishing a heterosexual relation-
ship.

2. Either liis biological sexual maturity is neurotically inhib-
ited, or, as is very common, the psychic infantilism, the fixation in
infantile attitudes toward the parents, has created a discrepancy
between psychic and physical maturity.

3. In materially underprivileged people, adolescents may be
retarded physically also. Then we have physical as well as
psychic underdevelopment in the presence of sexual maturity.

4. There is not only a severe sexual taboo against adolescent
sexuality. There is in addition, the complete lack of help on the
part of societ} ; more tha]i that, every kind of active measure to
prevent the adolescent from taking up sexual intercourse. For
example:

a) The active prevention of factual education of the adoles-
cents in problems of their sexuality. What has become so fash-
ionable under the name of “sex education’' is not only a half-way
measure, it is worse. It only increases confusion, because it starts
out on something which has inevitable consequences, without
the determination to draw these consequences. For instance, a
girl of 14 is told the nature of masturbation, but one is careful
not to mention the nature of sexual excitations. This is an illus-
tration of what we said elsewhere: The exclusive biological con-
templation of sexual life is a diversion manoeuvre. The adolescent
is not very much interested in knowing how the ovum and the
spermatozoon unite into the “mystery” of a new living being;
but he is vitally, burningly, interested in the “mystery” of the
sexual excitation with which he so desperately struggles. But
what logical argument would be left to keep the adolescent from
sexual intercomse if one told him the truth: that he has become
biologically ready for sexual intercourse and that his sundry
difiiculties are the result of his urging and yet unsatisfied sex-
uality? Since he cannot be told the truth, whatever “sex educa-
tion” he gets will only increase his difiiculties. This is, of course.

NON-ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF TIIE SEX LIFE OF YOUTH 113

in accordance with our social system. The sexual crippling of the
adolescents is only the logical continuation of the crippling
of infantile sexuality.

b) The problems of housing and contraception. With the gen-
eral housing shortage, even the adults among the workers’ popu-
lation have hardly a possibility to be alone together without
being disturbed. But for the adolescents this problem causes an
untold misery. Characteristically, this problem is never men-
tioned by our sex reformers. For what could they reply to a brash
youngster who asked them why society does not provide for them
in this respect? Instead, they talk to the youngsters about their
“responsibilities” until they forget their own responsibility for
the fact that youngsters have sexual intercourse in corridors,
in cars, in barns and beliind fences, always afraid of detection.

Or even the question of contraception! Brash youngsters might
a.sk naively what interest s(X;iety has not to inform them about
the best methods of contraception or not to help them if one of
them might fail.

It goes without saying that in a society w'hich does not recog-
nize extramarital sexual intercourse, which does not even take
measures for a hygienic sex life among adults, such questions
cannot be answered or solved.

It also goes without saying that without a different sexual
education of children and without the solution of the problems
of housing and contraception, it would be irresponsible and
dangerous simply to tell youth to go ahead and have sexual inter-
course. Such a procedure would be no less harmful than is the
opposite, the preaching of abstinence.

Our task has been to show the contradictions in the present
situation and to show the impossibility of solving these problems
under present conditions. I trust I have succeeded in this. And
yet, if we do not want to be charlatans and cowards, we must
affirm the sexuality of adolescents in principle, must help tliem
where we can and do everything in our power to pave the way
for its final liberation. By now, the reader will have realized that
this is an enormous task and a great responsibility.

114

THE PROBLEM OF PUBERTY

Now he will also understand better the lialflieartedncss and
inconsistency of present-day sexual education. It has the following
cliaracterislies: it is always too late, it behaves mysteriously and
it alwa) s e\ ades the essential point, sexual pleasure. Those peo-
j)le wlio are against any sex education are more consistent. They
represent cleariy the reactionarv point of \'iew. They ha^ e to be
fought because they are enemies of scientific truth and con-
sistemev, but, in a way, they are more c‘lear-c‘ut than those
would-hc reformers \^]u) actiiallv bclicxe tl^at tlicv are chang-
ing an\t:iiug \vilh their teachings. Wlnit ihcv actuallv do is to
confuse tlie i.ssue, to camouilage th.e necessity of social change.

This does not mrsm, of course, that one should proceed like
the al)0\'e-cjuoled clcrgvinan P. Tn the individual case, the sex
counsellor will, after tliorough evaluation of the social, psychic,
and economic* siluatiojc not prohibit sexual intercourse to an
adolescent vrlio is readv for it, but will recommend it. Individual
help and social measures are two different things.

From a social standpoint, things remain the same for the
time being: children continue to be educated to asceticism and
adolescents continue to be told that cultural achievement re-
(juires abstinence, or that masturbation will console them until
they are able to get married.

The contradiction between a progressixe collectivization of
living and the sex-negative social atmosphere must lead to a
crisis in adolescent sexuality for which there is no solution in
authoritarian society. As long as youth was altogetlier tied to the
family, as long as the girls, exposed to little sexual excitation,
were content to wait for the man who eventually would take
care of them, as long as the boys lived in abstinence, mastur-
bated or went to prostitutes— so long was there only silent suffer-
ing, neurosis or sexual brutality. Under present conditions of
living, the sexual needs which strive for liberation are hemmed
in by the inhibitions acejuired through education on the one
hand, and by tlie objections of reactionary society on the other
hand. Nothing at all is changed in this by the vague talk of the

NON-ETinCAL CONSIDERATIONS OF THE SEX LIFE OF YOUTH 115

sex reformers, or by such advice as “hard mattresses,” “diversion
in athletics or good boohs” or a “meatless diet.”

I contend that the youth of today has a)i iiifinite]\' harder time
of it than the youth of, say, the turn of tlie century. Then they
were still able to repress completely. Today, the sovn cfis of adoles-
cent life have opened up, but youtli lacks the help of society as
well as tlie structural strength to use these sources. To stop
them again is no longer possible.

The sexual crisis of youth is an infcft,ral part of the crisis of
the authoritarian social order. Within this framework it remains
iinsolvahle on a mass scale.

Chapter VII

COMPULSIVE MARRIAGE AND LASTING
SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP

[Addition^ 1945: There is an enormous confusion with regard
to the concepts of “marriage’' and “family." As a result of this
confusion, the physician who is called upon to give advice in
questions of personal living keeps coming in conflict with the
formal concept of marriage. The general impression is that to tlie
unconscious of individuals who are afraid of sexuality, the formal
marriage certificate is nothing but a permit to indulge in sexual
intercourse. This is shown particularly clearly in tlie case of what
is called “war marriages”: Couples who, before the man’s de-
parture, wish to experience the happiness of the sexual embrace,
rush to the license bureau for permission in the fonn of a marriage
certificate. Tlicn, they are separated for several years, and the
separation gradually extinguishes the memory of the partner. If
they are young, they will meet other love partners, for which no
sensible individual will condemn tliem. Yet, the marriage license
continues to exert its binding influence, though it has become a
purely formal, empty one. The young people who, before a
separation of uncertain length and outcome, wished to give each
other happiness, now find themselves caught in a net. Much has
been written, especially in this country, about the misery stem-
ming from such “marriages.” But in all these writings, nobody
has bared the core of the problem: the demand for the legaliza-
tion of a love experience. Nevertheless, everybody knows that
“We want to get married"" really means “We want to embrace each
otlier sexually.”

Another source of confusion and misery is the conflict between
the legal (ecclesiastical) and the factual content of the concept

]16

MAKIUAGE AND LASTING SEXUAL EELATIONSHIP 117

of “marriage.” To the formal legal mind, it is an entirely different
thing than to the objective psychiatrist. To the lawyer, marriage
is a miion of two people of different sex on the basis of a legal
document. To the psychiatrist, it is an emotional attachment on
the basis of a sexual tmion, usually with the wish for children. To
the psychiatrist, it is not a marriage if the partners merely possess
a marriage certificate but otherwise do not have a marriage
partnership. The marriage certificate in itself does not constitute
a marriage. To the psychiatrist, it is a marriage when two people
of different sex love each other, take care of each other, hve to-
gether and, by having children, extend the union into a family.
To the psychiatrist, marriage is a practical and factual union of
a sexual nature, regardless of whether there is a marriage certifi-
cate or not. To the psychiatrist, tlie marriage certificate is nothing
but an oflBcial confirmation of a sexual relationship which was
decided upon, established and lived by the partners. In his eyes,
it is the partners, and not the court officials, who determine, in a
practical way, whether or not a marriage exists.

Human sexual structure has degenerated as a result of com-
pulsive morality; under these circumstances, the marriage cer-
tificate represents a protection for the woman against possible
irresponsibility of the man. Insofar— and only insofar— does the
marriage certificate fulfil a function. The consciousness of the
factual character of natural marriages without marriage certificate
is widespread and deep-rooted. In the U.S.A., as well as in
France, Scandinavia and many other countries, tliere is the
“common-law marriage”; in most states of the U.S.A., it is legally
recognized. Where it is not, that does not mean, however, that,
as many people with sexual guilt feelings believe, factual marriage
without marriage certificate is forbidden. There are no laws
against factual marriage without marriage certificate.

It goes without saying tliat from the point of view of rational
mental hygiene the prototype of a lasting sexual relationship is the
factual and not the formal marriage. Rational mental hygiene
aims at inner responsibility and not responsibility enforced from
without. It considers such enforcement of responsibility from

118 MARRIAGE AND LASTING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP

witliout an expedient for the mastery of antisocial actions but
not as a desirable end.

The interest in moral self-regulation calls for a strong fight and
stringent laws against tlie effects of the emotional plague in this
field: against defamation of marriage partners without a marriage
certificate and of their children by individuals afflicted with the
emotional plague who are incapable of comprehending this
highly moral type of social behavior, let alone are capable of
living it tliemselves; against the deeply immoral, pathological
blackmailing and financial indecencies made possible by the mar-
riage laws based on compulsive morality; against the sexual
lascivity provoked by the divorces of unhappy, formal “mar-
riages”; against the nonsensicality of speaking of “marriage” in
the case of relationships governed by riotliiiig but hatred and
meaimess, etc.

In this sphere, practically everytliing is upside down, and an
Augean stable is to be cleansed. What is chiefly necessary is this:
Love relationships must be protected against any interference by
economic interests; stringent laws must be enacted against the
defamation of natural and decent love relationships and of the
children springing from them; steps must he taken to eliminate
sexual guilt feelings and to replace external compulsive morality
by inner responsibility. The times are ripe for this. Nowhere is the
necessity of a radical reform of laws denied, except, perhaps, in
those circles which derive economic gain from the existence of a
sexual legislation which is obsolete and disastrous from the point
of view of mental hygiene.]

Marriage, which in its present form only represents a stage in
the development of the institution of marriage in general, is the
result of a compromise between economic and sexual interests.
The sexual interests, certainly, are not such as many conservative
sexologists would have us believe, namely, sexual relations with
one and the same partner for life, and procreation. We will have
to examine the two aspects of the marriage problem— the eco-
nomic and the sexual— separately. We will have to make a strict
distinction between that form of sexual relationship which is
based on sexual needs and which tends to become lasting, and

THE LASTING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP

119

that other which is based on economic interests and the position
of woman and children in onr society. The former wc call lasting
sexual relationsliip, the latter, marriage (short for compulsive
marriage ) .

1. THE LASTINC; SEXUAI. RELATIONSHIP

The social prerequisites of the lasting sexual rclationsln'p would
be economic independence of the woman, social care and educa-
tion of the children, lack of interference by economic interests.
Temporary, purely sensual relationships would compete with it.
From the point of view of sexual economy, the temporary rela-
tionship has disadvantages compared with the lasting sexual
relationship. These can be studied particularly well in our society.
For in no other society has promiscuity been as common as in the
age of the flourishing ideology of strict monogamy; a promiscuity,
fui’thermore, wljich is emotionally debased and sex-economic'ally
worthless because of its mercenary character.

The temporary sexual relationship, the extreme of which is the
one-hour or onc-night relationship, is different from the lasting
sexual relationship in that it lacks the tender interest in the part-
ner. The tender relationship with the partner may have several
motives;

1. A sexual attachment as the result of mutual pleasurable
sensual experiences. It contains a good deal of sexual o^ratitude
for thci sexual pleasure of the past, and a sexual tic (not to be
confused with neurotic bondage) because of the pleasure waiting
in the future. Both together are the basic elements of the naturd
love relationship.

2. An attachment to the partner as a result of repressed hatred:
reactive love. This we shall discuss later, in connection with com-
pulsive marriage. It makes sexual gratification impossible.

3. An attachment due to ungratified sensual needs. It is char-
acterized by overestimation of the partner, and is due to an
inhibited sensuality and an unconscious expectation of a certain
kind of sexual gratification. It readily changes into hatred.

Lasting absence of tenderness in a sexual relationship reduces
sensual experience and with that sexual gratification. This is

120 MABBIAGE AND UVSTING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP

true, however, only from a eertain age on, that is, when the
sensual storms of puberty have blown over and a certain equilib-
rium of sexual emotions has established itself. The tender atti-
tudes— unless sensuality has become neurotically suppressed— do
not attain their full strength until a certain gratification of the
sensual needs has taken place. These tender attitudes should not
be confused with the childlike pseudo- tenderness exhibited by
admiring youtlis who unconsciously are after a female ideal
which represents their mothers, and who at the same time repress
their sensuality under the pressure of giiilt feelings. The free, at
first temporary sexual relationships as we see them in certain
strata of our youth, seem to me to be the natural, healthy forms
of sexual experience corresponding to their age. They are similar
to the sex life of adolescents in primitive societies. True, they
do not lack a high degree of tenderness, but this does not tend to
make the relationship a lasting one. It is not the lascivious desire
for new sexual stimuli that we see in the neurotic polygamy of
adult men of the world but rather, a bubbling over of a sensuality
which has just become mature, and its attachment to any suitable
sexual object which may present itself. It is like the pleasurable
motility of the young animal which also diminishes later on.
The sexual agility of healthy youth is not difficult to distinguish
from such neurotic phenomena as hysterical hyperagility.

Short-lived sexual relationships at a mature age are not of
necessity neurotic. More than that, if we honestly, without any
moralistic prejudice, draw tlie conclusions from our sexological
experience, we must say that he or she who never had the courage
or the strength to enter such a relationship was under the pressure
of an irrational, that is, neurotic, guilt feeling. On the other hand,
clinical experience shows beyond any doubt that those people
who are incapable of establishing a lasting relationship are also
dominated by an infantile fixation of their love relationships, in
other words, suffer from a sexual disorder. Either their tender
strivings are anchored in some kind of homosexual attachment
(typical, for example, in athletes, students and professional sol-
diers), or it is because a phantasy ideal makes any real sexual

THE LASTING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP

121

object seem worthless. Very often, the unconscious background
of a continued and unsatisfactory promiscuity is the fear of be-
coming attached to an object, because any such attachment has
incestuous connotations, and incest-fear again and again acts as
an inhibition. The most frequent mechanism here is a disturb-
ance of orgastic potency: the disappointment wliich every sexual
act brings anew, prevents the establishment of a tender attach-
ment to the partner.

The most important disadvantage of tlie temporary relation-
ship, scx-economically speaking, is the fact that it does not allow
the same complete sensual adaptation between the partners,
and consequently not the same complete sexual gratification as
the lasting sexual relationship. This is the most important sex-
economic objection to the temporary relationship and the
strongest argument for the lasting relationship. At this point, tlie
proponents of the marriage ideology will heave a sigh of relief;
they will see here a way of again smuggling in the moralistic life-
long monogamy. But we shall have to disappoint them again.
For wlien we speak of a lasting relationship, we are not think-
ing of any definite period of lime. Sex-econornically, it is not im-
portant whether this relationship lasts weeks, months, two years
or ten years. Neither do we mean that the relationship must or
should be monogamous, because we do not establish norms.

As I have shown elsewliere,’ the concept tliat the first sexual
act with a virgin is the most satisfying act, that tlie honeymoon is
the most gratifying period sexually, is erroneous. Such a concept
is contradicted by all clinical experience. It results from the con-
trast between the lascivious desire for virginal women and the
later blunting and the sexual emptiness in permanent monoga-
mous marriage. Satisfactory sexual relationsliips between two
people presuppose that a harmonization of their sexual rhythms
has taken place. Only if the tw’^o partners get to know intimately
the special sexual needs which are rarely conscious but nonethe-
less important, is a sex-economically sound sex life possible. To
enter a marriage without having become mutually acquainted
sexually is poor hygiene and usually leads to catastrophe.

1 Die Funktion des Orcasmus, 1927 .

122 MABRIAGE AND LASTING SEXUAL RELATIONSmP

Another advantage of a gratifying permanent sexual relation-
ship is that it makes the eternal quest for a suitable partner
unnecessary and thus liberates time and energy for social
achievement.

The capacity for a permanent sexual relationship presupposes
the following:

Full orgastic potency, i.e., no dissociation between tender and
sensual sexuality;

The overcoming of incestiial fixation and infantile sexual
anxiety;

The absence of repression of any unsublimated sexual strivings,
be they homosexual or non-genital;

Absolute aflSrmation of sexuality and joie de vivre;

Overcoming the basic elements of authoritarian sexual morality;
capacity for mental companionship witli the partner.

Looking at these ])rerequisites from tlie point of view of social
conditions we are bound to admit that none of them can be
realized in authoritarian society, that is 1)V the masses, tliough
possibly by indi\'iduals. Since the negation and repression of
sexuality arc specific and inseparable parts of authoritarian so-
ciety, it follows of necessity that thev also determine sexual edu-
cation. Family education fosters incestuous fixation instead of
loosening it; the inhibition of infantile sexual activity creates the
dissociation between tender and sensual sexuality; it thus creates
a sex-negative character structure witli pregenital and homo-
sexual tendencies; these in turn call for repression and lead to a
weakening of sexuality. In addition, the education for the su-
premacy of the man makes companionship with the woman
impossible.

The permanent sexual relationship contains ample material
for conflict, no less than any other permanent relationship. What
interests us here are not the general human difiRculties but those
that are specifically sexual. The basic difficulty of any permanent
sexual relationship is the conflict between the dulling (temporary
or final) of sensual desire on the one hand and the increasing
tender attachment to the partner on the other hand.

THE LASTING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP

123

In every sexual relationship— sooner or later, rarely or more
frequently— periods of diniinislied sexual attraction or even of
sensual indifference occur. This is an empirical fact against w^hich
no moralistic argument prevails. Sexual interest cannot be com-
manded. The greater tlic sensual and tender harmony between
the partners, the less frequent, the less final will such episodes be.
However, any sexual rclationsliip is exposed to this dulling of
sexual attraction. This fact would be of small signific'ance were
it not for the following facts:

1. The dulling may occur only in one partner but not the other.

2. At the present, most sexual relationships are tied also
cconomicalhj (('conomic dependence of woman and children).

3. Independent of these external difficulties, there is a diffi-
culty which lies inherently in llie permanent relationship itself
and complicates the only solution: separation and finding another
partner.

Everybody is constantly exposed to new sexual stimuli emanat-
ing from others than the partner. At a time when the relationship
is at its height these stimuli remain without effect. Nevertheless,
they cannot be eliminated; more than that, any attempt to elimi-
nate them, like ecclesiastical prescriptions for modesty in dress
or any other ascetic or moralistic social rneasiu e, will liave the op-
posite effect, liccause the suppression of sexual demands never
does anything but increase tl^.eir urgency. The o\'erlooking of this
fundamental fact constitutes the tragedv— or comedy— of all
ascetic sexual moralitv. The sexual stimuli are tliere. In everv
sexually healthy individual they arouse the desire for other sexual
objects. In the beginning, due to the existence of a gratifying
sexual relationship, these desires have little effect. The healthier
tlie individual, the niore conscious (i.e., not repressed) are these
desires; and tlie more conscious they are, the easier are they to
control. Naturally, such control is the more harmless tlie more it
is guided by sex-economic instead of by moralistic considerations.

When, however, these desires for other objec'ts become more
urgent, they affect the existing sexual relationship, especially in
the sense of accelerating the dulling. The unmistakable signs of

124 MARRIAGE AND LASTING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP

this dulling are a decrease of the sexual urge before the act and
of the pleasure in the act. Sexual intercourse begins to become
a habit and a duty. The decreased satisfaction with the partner
and the desire for other objects add up and mutually reinforce
each other. This cannot be averted cither by good intentions or
by ‘love techniques.'' This is when the critical stage of irrita-
tion toward the partner sets in; depending on temperament and
education, this irritation may be expressed or suppressed. At any
rate: as tlie analysis of such conditions shows again and again,
the unconscious hatred of the partner keeps increasing. It is
motivated by the partner's frustrating the desires for other ob-
jects. The fact that the unconscious hatred may become the more
intense the more amiable and tolerant the parti^er is, is onl)^ seem-
ingly a paradox. In that case the partner gives no reason for any
personal and conscious hatred; at the same time he, or one's own
love for him, is felt as a hindrance. The hatred becomes over-
compensated and glossed over by extreme affection. This reactive
affection born of hatred and the attendant guilt feelings are the
specific basis of a sticky attachment and the very reason why
people so often, even if thev are not married, cannot separate,
even if they have no longer anvthing to say to each other, even
less anything to give to each other, and the continuation of the
relationship is nothing but a mutual torture.

However, such dulling need not be definite. It is apt to turn
from a temporary condition into a lasting one if the sexual part-
ners are unable to consciously recognize their mutual hatred and
if they refute their desire for other objects as improper and
immoral. In tliat case, repression of all these impulses usually
follows, with all the disastrous results which the repression of
powerful impulses is bound to have for the relationship between
two people.

If, on the other hand, one can meet such facts squarely,
without any sex-moralistic distortion, the conflict will not take
on such dimensions, and some way out of the diflBculty will
be found. The prerequisite is that the normal jealousy which
one feels does not turn into possessive demands; further, that

THE LASTING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP

125

one recognizes a desire for others as natural and rnatter-of-
course. Nobody would think of blaming anybody for not wanting
to wear the same dress year in, year out, or for getting tired
of eating the same food all the time. Only in the sexual realm
has the exclusiveness of possession attained a great emotional
significance; this, because the interlacing of economic interests
and sexual relations made natural jealousy expand into the right
of possession. Many mature and superior people have told me
that once they had fought through tlicir inner conflict, the
tliought of their sexual partner’s entering a temporary relation-
ship witli somebody else had lost its terror and that after that
the previous impossibility of the idea of an act of “unfaithful-
ness” seemed ridiculous to them. Innumerable examples show
that failfifulness based on conscience gradually undermines the
relationship. On the other hand, numerous examples show clearly
that an occasional relationship with another partner only helped
a relationship which was on the point of taking on the form of
compulsive marriage. In a permanent sexual relation.ship which
is not economically bound there are two possible outcomes of
this situation: Either, the relationship with the third person was
only temporary; that proves that it could not compete with the
existing one; in that case, the latter only becomes consolidated;
the woman has lost the feeling of being inhibited or of being
incapable of entering another relationship. Or, the new relation-
ship becomes more intensive than the old one, pro\’iding deeper
pleasure and companionship; in tliis case, the old relationship
is dissolved.

What happens to the partner whose love ma\' persist? Doubt-
less, he or she will have a hard battle. Jealousv and a feeling
of sexual inferiority will fight with the understanding for the
other partner’s fate. He or she may try to win the partner back,
or may prefer to wait passively and leave the decision to the
course of events. After all, we do not give advice, we only con-
sider the actual possibilities. In any case, the situation is not as
bad as the disastrous situation which results when two people
stick together for moral or otlier irrational reasons. The considera-

126 MARRIAGE AND LASTING SEXUAL RELATIONSraP

tion of the other partner which so many people show in such
cases, by constantly suppressing their real desires, without ever
being able to eradicate them, this consideration turns into its
opposite only too easily. He who has been too considerate tends
to feel that the other person owes him gratitude, tends to con-
sider himself a victim and mart\T, and to become intolerant; all
of which attitudes are much uglier and a much greater danger
to the relationship than a case of “unfaithfulness’’ ever could have
been.

Unfortunately, what has been said here applies onlv for a small
minority of people, because, in our society, tlie economic de-
pendence of tlie woman forces sexual relationships to take on
an entirely different form from that liere described of two inde-
pendent individuals. In addition, the question of bringing up
children may nullify these sex-cconornic considerations. Also,
the sexual education to which practically all people were sub-
jected, and the social atmosphere, continue to make such solu-
tions rare individual occurrences.

One specific difficulty should be mentioned here because it
may have serious consequences if not understood. At a time
when the sexual attraction diminishes or disappears, the man may
show disturbances of potency. Usually it is a matter of insuffi-
cient erection, perhaps lack of excitation in spite of stimulation.
In the continued presence of a tender relationship or of a fear of
impotence, such an occurrence may precipitate a depression or
even more or less lasting impotence. In trying to hide his cold-
ness, the man will attempt sexual intercourse again and again.
This may be dangerous. It should be remembered that this lack
of erection, at first at any rate, is not hnpotence, but simply the
expression of lacking desire and of a desire—usually unconscious
—for another partner. (In the woman, essentially the same thing
may occur, only in her it does not have the same importance;
first, because the sexual act can be carried out in spite of her
disturbance, and second because the woman does not feel as
offended by such a disturbance as the man). If the relationship
is otherwise good, a frank talk about the causes of the disturb-

THE LASTING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP

127

ance (sensual aversion, desire for another partner) often elimi-
nates the diflBculty. And it takes patience. In otherwise good
relationships, tlie sexual desire usually returns sooner or later.
At such a point, an attempt with another partner may miscarry
because of guilt feelings toward the first partner. In other cases,
it helps.

In the presence of a neurotic disposiiio)), the repression of the
desire for anotlu^r partner, plus that of the aversion toward the
present partner, is apt to lead to neurotic illness. Very often, such
an acute conflict interferes seriously with tlie working capacity.
These people fall ill because tlicy seek the gratification, which is
denied them in reality, in phantasies, usually connected with mas-
turbation. Tlie outcome of such acute conflicts may vary greatly,
depending on individual disposition, the character of the sexual
relationship, and the moral attitudes of the individual and the
sexual partner. Our prejudices in sexual morality may do untold
hann here; quite commonly, the very thought of another person
is felt to be improper or already an act of unfaithfulness. Tlie fact
that such conditions are a natural part of the sexual drive, that
they are a matter of course and have nothing to do with mo-
rality, should be general knowledge. If it were a matter of general
knowledge, the tortures and murders of husbands and wives or
of sweethearts certainly would become less frequent; also, a
great many precipitating causes for psycliic disturbances would
be eliminated, disturbances which are nothing but an inadequate
way out of such situations.

Up to this point, I have discussed difficulties which arise from
the permanent sexual relationship itself. Before turning to the
ways in which these difficulties arc complicated by the inter-
ference of economic interests, I have to mention some facts which
create difficulties also in the sexual relationship which has not yet
become a marriage of duty. What I mean is the idcolofixf of mo-
nogamy, as it is accepted and represented especially by the
woman.

For a woman, even though she be economically independent,
the breaking up of a permanent sexual relationship is no simple

128 MARRIAGE AND LASTING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP

matter. To begin with, there is so-called public opinion^ an insti-
tution which presumes to meddle in everybody’s private affairs.
True, it is less severe today with the woman who has an extra-
marital relationship, but it makes any woman a prostitute who
dares to have relationsliips with several men.

Sexual morality, pervaded by interests of possession as it is,
has brought about a state of affairs in which it is considered a
matter of course that the man “possesses” the woman, while the
woman "'gives herself.” Since possessing signifies honor, while
“giving oneself” has the connotation of debasing oneself, women
have developed a negative attitude toward the sexual act. This
attitude is constantly being fostered by authoritarian education.
And, worse, since to most men the possessing of a woman is a
proof of their virility rather than an experience of love, since with
them, the conquest is more important than love, this attitude
on the part of the women becomes tragically justified.

In addition, the girl has, from infancy on, al)sorbed the de-
mand that a woman should have intercourse with only one
man. The influences of such an education go deeper and are
more powerful— being anchored by unconscious guilt feelings—
than the influence of later sexual enlightenment which comes too
late. One keeps meeting women who— in spite of better intel-
lectual insight— are incapable of separating from an unloved
man, and who refute any thought of it with all kinds of irrelevant
arguments. The real motive, which remains unconscious, might

be formulated like this: “Mv mother has stood her dreadful mar-

✓

riage all her life, so 111 have to stand it, too.” In the majority of
cases, this identification with the faithful, monogamous mother
is the most effective inhibiting factor.

Permanent sexual relationships which do not turn into mar-
riage rarely are of lifelong duration. The earlier such relation-
ships are begun, the greater is the likeliness that they will be
dissolved sooner than others that were started later; the greater
also, as can easily be shown, the psychological and biological
justification for dissolving them. Up until the age of about 30,
the average individual— unless he is too much inhibited by his

THE PROBLEM OF MARRIAGE

129

economic situation— is in constant psychic development. Only at
this age, interests usually begin to crystallize and to become per-
manent. The ideology of asceticism and of lasting monogamy,
then, are strictly at variance with the process of psychic and
physical development. This ideology cannot be put into execu-
tion. This leads us to the contradictions inherent in any ideology
of marriage.

2. THE PROBT.EM OF MARRIAGE

The difficulties described in the case of the permanent sexual
relationship are accentuated by economic bonds and in reality
made insuperable. The permanent sexual relalionshAp, with its
biological and pstjchosexual foimdaiion, tints turns into com-
pulsive marriage. This institution is ideologically characterized
by the ecclesiastical demands that it must be a) lifelong, and
b) strictly monogamous. True, society mitigates the ecclesiastical
form of marriage, but it never goes to its inner contradictions,
because, if it did, society would come into conflict with its own
liberal concepts. From an economic point of \iew, it would have
to uphold marriage, while from an ideological point of view it
would have to draw conclusions which arc not practicable. This
contradictoriness is found, without exception, in all scientific and
literary treatises dealing with marriage. Reduced to the briefest
formula, the contradiction is this: True, the marriages are had,
but the institution of compulsive marriage must be upheld and
nurtured. The first half of this formula is a statement of fact, the
second a demand, a demand in accordance with reactionary
society of which the institution of compulsive marriage is an
inseparable part.

Due to this double loyalty— facts on the one hand, reactionary
ideology on the other hand— writers arrive at the most peculiar
and absurd arguments in favor of the preservation of compulsive
marriage.

Thus, for example, they attempt to prove that marriage and
monogamy are ‘natural” phenomena, that is, that they are bio-
logically determined. They search assiduously among all the

130 MARRIAGE AND LASTING SEXUAL RELATIONSmP

animal species with an undoubtedly irregular sex life, pick out
the storks and pigeons and find that they live— sometimes!—in
monogamy; from tliis follov^s, they say, that monogamy is “natu-
ral.” Peculiar how all of a sudden, the human is no longer a
superior being, not to be compared with animals, when it eomes
to support the ideology of monogamous marriage by such a
comparison. On the other hand, when llie marriage problem is
being discussed from the point of view of hiolo^ij, then the faet
is overlooked that promiscuity is the rule in animals; then, all
of a sudden, man is different from the animals and thus will
have to attain the “highest plane” of sexual activity, monogamous
marriage. Then, man is a “superior being” with an “inborn mo-
rality,” and sex-economy is fought because it has proved beyond
doubt that there is no sueh thing as an inborn morality. But if
morality is not inborn, it must be accpiired by education. Educa-
tion by whom? By society and its ideology factory, the authori-
tarian family based on compulsive monogamy. This shows clearly
enough that the family is not a natural phenomenon, but a social
institution.

But reactionary argumentation is long-lived. When one has
to admit that marriage is neither a natural nor a supernatural
but a social institution, one begins to try to prove that people
have always lived in monogamy, and denies any development
and change of sexual forms. One even falsifies ethnology as did
Westermark, for example, and arrives at conclusions like the
following: If people always have lived in lifelong monogamy,
then one must conclude that this institution is necessary for the
existence of human society, of the state, culture and civilization.
One overlooks history which shows that polygamous and promis-
cuous sex life has always played a role. Instead, one replaces tlie
point of view of development by that of morality. One discovers
the development of sexuality to ‘liigher planes,” that the primi-
tives live in bestial immorality, and that we can pride ourselves
in having overcome such “anarchic” conditions in sex life. One
overlooks the fact tliat man is distinguished from the animal not
by a lesser sexuality but by a more intensive one (readiness for

THE PROBLEM OF MARRIAGE

131

sexual activity at all times ) . Certainly, as far as sexuality is con-
cerned, tlie slogan of man being ‘'higlier tban tlie animar' is mis-
taken. If, however, one adheres to sucli moralistic views, one is
incapable of seeing tlie facts, such facts, for e^xample, as that
“savages” show a sex-economy which is far superior to oiirs.*^
Then also, one has no possibility of examining sexual forms—
which change according to place and time— as to their economic
and social basis. Instead, one gets more and more entangled in
moralistic evaluation instead of fact-finding, and in endless, fruit-
less discussions. One attempts to justify— morally, melaphysically
or biologisticallv— social phenomena winch long since were
doomed; and all this takes place under the guise of allegedly
objective science, a science which seems all the more awe-
inspiring to the Babbitts the more inoralistically prejudiced it
behaves.

If, on the other hand, one sticks strictly to tiie facts, two ques-
tions present themselves:

1. What is the social function of marriage?

2. What is the inherent contradiction in marriage?

a) The social function of marriage.

The social function of the institution of marriage is threefold:
economic, political and social. It is identical with that of the
authoritarian family.

Economic: Just as marriage, in human history, began to develop
witli the private ownership of the social means of production, so
it continues to have its reason for existence in this economic
basis. That is, as long as these economic conditions continue to

~ C/., especially, Malinowski, Tiik Sf.xual Life of Sav^ages, and Reich, Der
Einhruch der Sexualmoral.

’^Addition, 19 ff: This formulation, though correct, is incomplete. Tii the Soviet
Union, there is no private owncaship of the soc:ial means (»f production, but s' ate
ownership. Nevertheless, compulsive marriage has been reintroduced. The above
formulation, then, has to be supplemented as billows;

a) The authoritarian compulsive family has its historical basis in the private
ownership of the scjcial means of production and is maintained by state authority
even where the private ownership of the social means of prc»duction has bc'cn
abolished.

b) The authoritarian compulsive family is anchored in the authoritarian, sex-
negative human structure.

132 MARRIAGE AND LASTING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP

exist, marriage is a social necessity. The objection that classes
without such an economic interest live in the same form of sex
life is erroneous, for the ruling ideologies are those of the ruling
class; tlie form of marriage is based not only on economic fac-
tors, but also on the ideological moral atmosphere and on human
structure. This is why most people are unconscious of the real
basis of maniagc; they always think about it in terms of ideo-
logical rationalizations. However, when material reasons de-
mand it, society will change the ideology. After tlie Thirty Years’
War, the population of Middle Europe had dwindled con-
siderably. Then, on February 14, 1650, the District Council of
Niirnberg issued a decree which eliminated the demand for
monogamy: “Whereas tlie needs of the Holy Roman Empire
make it necessary to replace again the manhood which during
this Thirty Years’ War has been decimated by the sword, sick-
ness and hunger . . . every male, for the next Um years, shall,
therefore be allowed to marry two womeri' ( quoted from Fuchs,
SiTTENGESCHiCHTE ) . And sciciitists talk of “natural, biological”
monogamy.

Folilical. Monogamous lifelong marriage is the nucleus of tlie
authoritarian family; tliis, in turn, as we have shown, is the
ideological training ground for every member of authoritarian
society. In this lies the political significance and importance of
marriage.

Social, The economic dependence of tlie woman and the chil-
dren is a chief characteristic of patriarchal society. Secondarily,
marriage thus becomes an economic and moral (in the sense of
patriarchal interests) protection for women and children. Con-
sequently, patriarchal and authoritarian society must of necessity
uphold marriage. It is not a question here whether marriage is
good or bad, whether it is socially justified and necessary. One
cannot want to abolish marriage in a society in which marriage
is economically rooted. One can only introduce minor “reforms,”
such as substituting the principle of incompatibility for that of
guilt as a reason for divorce; no such reforms change the funda-
mentals in the least.

THE PROBLEM OF MARRIAGE

133

Such reforms result from contradictions in the marriage situa-
tion wliich arise not for economic but for sex-economic reasons.
They are mostly of the character of tragicomic jokes, as portrayed
in the following newspaper item {Pester Lloyd, January 25,
1929):

Bridge as school subject. From Cleveland in America comes a sur-
prising report. The city schools there have decided to make bridge an
obligatory subject. The reason giv(m for this peculiar innovation is
that the American home seems doomed because there is so much
less bridge playing. Numerous marriages have gone on the rocks
because the husbands and wives, instead of playing bridge with each
other or in good company, went out by themselves. By teaching the
children bridge, it is hoped that not only will they themselves be
trained for a solid marital life, but also will exert a good influence on
tlu'ir parents, most of whom live in shattered marriages.

One might say that most remarks about marriage which one
hears are made in such a jocular vein; it is easy to see what
serious facts are covered up by such superficial jocularity. That
marriages disintegrate is nothing new. Nevertheless, let us look
at a few figures. First, the number of marriages and divorces in
Vienna between 1915 and 1925 (according to Walter Schiff):

Vear

Marriages

Divorces

1915

13,954

617

1916

12.855

656

1917 12.406 659

1919

26,182

2460

1920

31,164

3145

1921

2^.274

3300

1922

26.568

3113

1923

19,827

3371

1924

17,410

3437

1925

16.288

3241

One sees tliat the number of marriages— except for tlie years
immediately after the war— has increased only slightly, while the
number of divorces increased steadily, 500% in 10 years. Wliile
the ratio of marriages to divorces was about 20:1 in 1915, it was
5:1 in 1925.

134 MABRIAGE AND LASTING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP

In an article in the Pesti Naplo of November 18, 1928, we find
the following:

While it is true that tlie number of marriages has increased, the
number of divorces has increased much more rapidly. Between 1878
and 1927 the number of marriages has increased four times, while the
number of divorces has increased eighty (80) times. In 1926 the ratio
was even as high as 1:100.

This article reported further that the majority of these divorces
had taken place 5 or 6 years after marriage. In 1927, in 1,498 out
of 1,645 cases, tlie plea was “desertion”; only in two cases, the
reason for the divorce was adultery.

Since 1931, the number of marriages in Europe— with the ex-
ception of Czechoslovakia— has shown an increase, particularly
in Germany and Italy. This reflects the increased pressure on the
part of the political reaction; in Germany, 366,178 marriage loans
were extended within three years for the advancement of the
family ideology. Otherwise, such an increase means little if any-
thing. It does not say anytliing about any change in sexual living.
The basic contradiction remains the same.

In Soviet Russia, where the institution of marriage was prac-
tically abolished (the registration of a sexual relationship was
not obligatory), statistics show the following: In Moscow, the
number of registrations increased, between 1926 and 1929, from
24,899 to 26,211; during the same period, the separations in-
creased from 11,879 to 19,421. In Leningrad, tliere were 20,913
registrations in 1926, 24,369 in 1927. During the same time, sep-
arations increased from 5,536 to 16,008.

Figures for the U.S.A. by Lindsey are as follows: In 1922, the
number of divorces and desertions in Denver was greater than
that of marriages. Compared with 1921, there was a decrease in
marriages of 618, and an increase of divorces of 45. While tlie
number of marriages was 4,002 in 1920, it was 3,008 in 1922. In
Chicago, the number of divorces was exactly one third of the
number of marriages.

According to the United Press, there were in Atlanta in 1924

THE PROBLEM OF MARRIAGE

135

1,845 divorces to 3,350 marriages (over %); in Los Angeles 7,882
to 16,605 (almost Yz); in Kansas City 2,400 to 4,821 (almost
^ 2 ); in Ohio 11,885 to 53,300 (about 1/5); in Denver 1,500 to
3,000 (/ 2 ); and in Cleveland 5,256 to 16,132 (Ja). Lindsey com-
ments as follows:

Marriage, as we liave it now, is plain Hell for most persons who
get into it. That’s Hat. I defy anybody to watch the procession of
wrecked lives, unhappy men and women and miserable, homeless neg-
lected children who pass tlnough my court, and come to any other
conclusion.

(“Revolt,” p. 174)

In Chicago it is reported that there were 39,000 marriage licenses
issued in 1922 as compared with 13,000 divorce decrees actually signed.
If 13,000 divorce decrees were actually signed, how many couples do
you suppose there were who wished they could get somebody to sigji
a divorce decree for them, but who never acted on their wish? For
divorce is a troublesome, expensive, embarrassing business, and per-
sons who wish for it resort to the courts only when at the extremcj
limit of their endurance. If there were 39,(X)0 marriages in Chicago
in the year of grace 1922, it is absurdly coiiserv ative to say that fully

26.000 would have gotten divorces if they could, in addition to the

13.000 who did. I base this belief on the proportion of married couples
who come under my own observation, coming as they do confi-
dentially for advice and consolation, and who never go after the
divorce they wish for. I believe their number is many, many times
larger than the number of those who go to court with their problems.

(“Revolt,” p. 212)

There is no escaping the conclusion, if such facts be compared with
the statistics of former years, that divorces and separations are steadily
increasing, and that if this continues, as it probably will for some
time to come, there will be as many divorce cases filed in some parts
of the country as there are marriage licenses granted . . .

There are tens of thousands of cases where the flat failure of the
individual marriage is recorded in our courts, not as “divorce” or

136

MARRIAGE AND LASTING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP

“legal separation” but as failure to provide, non-support, desertion,
and the like. MateriuUy and psychologically there is no reason why
these should not be classed as divorces— for they would be just that if
the parties to such marriages could have their way, and were not held
together by circumstance, children, and their legal obligations. The
general name which would cover all such cases, including divorces,
separations, and all others are Marriages That Have Failed. Under
that title it would be conservative to say that there are as many
“divorces” annually as there are marriage licenses granted.

(“Revolt,” p. 213f.)

Here is an embarrassing talk with an American girl:

For instance, Mary, this girl of whom I have been telling, avoided
marriage because she objected to entering on a contract so nearly
irrevocable and so hard to break away from . . . What she demanded
was a kind of marriage that would leave her a free agent; but she
couldn’t have it. Therefore she rejected the whole institution, even
while admitting that, with certain amendments, she was for it, and
could see many advantages in it.

It may be contended that it was Maiy’s duty, as a law-abiding
member of Society, to conform to the institution of marriage as we
have it, and take her chance with it; and that if she could not bring
herself to that she must remain celibate and deny her sex life the
normal expression it craved.

To that Mary gives answer, rightly or wrongly, that she will not
sacrifice herself to any such fetish of conformity; that she will not
submit to having to make a choice between two such demands, both
of which she considers monstrous and unreasonable.

Instead, she raises a flag of defiance, and says, “No, I and my
generation will find a third way out. Whether you like it or not we
will make among ourselves a marriage pact of our own, one that will
meet our needs. We believe we have a natural right to companionship
and an intimacy which we instinctively crave; we have a knowledge
of contraception which precludes the likelihood that unwanted babies
will compheate the situation; we don’t admit that such a course on our
part imperils the safety of human society; and we believe that this
effort to replace tradition with what we think is common sense will
do good rather than harm.”— In substance that is the way she put it.

THE PROBLEM OF MARRIAGE

137

Now what am I, a man occupying a responsible judicial position,
to say to a challenge like that? On the one hand I can’t commend
Maiy’s conduct without disregarding the grave practical difficulties
and social dangers which may be involved in any headlong applica-
tion of her theories— the kind of application she herself is making of
them, for instance. On the other hand, 1 cannot, with sincerity or
honesty, say to Maiy or anybody else that 1 think the inslitution of
marriage cus we huve it capable of guaranteeing happiness to persons
who enter it. I cannot escape admitting that if marriage is ever to
merit the unqualified support of society it must be able to show
rc'siilts reasonably commensurate with its claims; and that for what-
ever unhappiness it produces by reason of its present rigid code it
must be held answerabl(\ Nor can 1 pass in silence over the fact that
marriage is ordained for the welfare' and happiness of mankind, and
that mankind was not made for it; that mamage is not an end but a
means; that when a shoe does not fit, it is the shoe rather than the foot
that must be altered. As to the demand for celibacy as an alternative
to a possibly disastrous njarriage, wh)' waste one’s bn'ath making
demands which people would never meet and which would do vio-
lence to a nee(issary instinct if they did meet it?

(“Revolt,” p. 138fi.)

And what are Lindsey’s conclusions from his own findings and
the painful talk with Mary?

And yet this is b)^ no means to say that marriage is a failure and
should go into the discard to make way for Free Love or any other
social Ism. However imperfect the institution may be tve canH do
without it. It must be preserved by means of sane and cautious altera-
tions in its code, to the (‘iid that it may create in people’s lives the
kind of happiness it should, under right conditions, be capable of
creating. I believe enormously in the beneficent possibilities of mar-
riage, but I can’t ignore the fact that we are not permitting it to fulfil
those possibilities. I hope I make myself clear,

(“Revolt,” p. 140)

As we see, even such an extraordinary man as Lindsey makes
the jump from the finding that marriage is disintegrating and
that it is at variance witli sex-economy, into reactionary ethics

138 MARRIAGE AND LASTING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP

which, as we know, are only a reflection of the economic necessi-
ties of the ruling system. That the disintegration of marriages is
so rapid and obvious in America is due to the fact that there,
capitalism has made the farthest advance and consequently pro-
duces the sharpest contradictions in the field of sex-economy:
strict puritanism on the one hand, collapse of reactionary moral-
ity on the other.

Lindsey is convinced that marriage must be preserved, because
of “the kind of happiness it should, under right conditions, be
capable of creating.” The question is not, however, whether
marriage has possibilities of happiness. The question is, rather,
whether it fulfils these possibilities; not whether it possibly may
make people happy, but whetlier it does. And if it does not, we
have to examine the causes; if it collapses, wc have to investigate
the material and sex-economic reasons for such collapse.

Hoffinger, during the 19th century, came to the following
conclusion :

In spite of conscic'ntioiis and intensive search for the number of
happy marriages, he had to recognize happy marriages to be the verj^
rare exceptions which confinned the ride.

(Quoted from Bloch, Das Sexualleben unskrer Z^ett)

Gross-HofBnger found:

1. About half of the marriages are absolutely unhappy.

2. Far more than half of these arc obviously demoralized.

3. The morality of the remainder certainly does not include marital
faithfulness.

4. In 15 per cent of all marriages the partners are engaged in
prostitution and pandering.

5. The number of orthodox marriages which are above any and all
suspicion of unfaithfulness is—in the eyes of any reasonable person
who knows nature and the impetuosity of its demands— zero.

(Bloch, Sexualleben)

Bloch examined 100 marriages and found the following:

THE PROBLEM OF MARRIAGE

139

Definitely unhappy 48

Indifference 36

Undoubtedly happy 15

Virtuous 1

Among these 100 marriages, Bloch found 14 “intentionally im~
moral"; 51 “frivolous and slovenly"; 2 “completely iinsuspect."
Note the moralistic terms. I checked up on these cases and found
that out of the marriages termed happy, 3 were at an advanced
age; in 13 there was unfaithfulness of one or both; 3 were char-
acterized as “phlegmatic," i.c., sexually undemanding (impo-
tent or frigid ) ; 2 were apparently happy. If, in 13 of 15 marriages
which are considered “undoubtedly liappy," the partners are
unfaithful, that shows that in the long run a marriage can be
happy only if its most important ideological demand, marital
faithfulness, is sacrificed, or if the partners have no sexual de-
mands at all.

A statistical study of my own, concerning 93 marriages with
which I was well acquainted, showed the following:

Unhappy or definitely unfaitliful 66

Spouses resigned or ill 18

Questionable (outwardly quiet) 6

Happy 3

Of the three happy marriages, none was older than 3 years.
The study was made in 1925. Since then, one of the marriages
has ended in divorce, one collapsed inwardly when the man
came to analysis, tlioiigh there has as yet been no divorce, the
third continues at tlie time of this writing (1929).

In a course for physicians, Lebedeva, in Moscow, gave some
interesting figures with regard to the duration of sexual relation-
ships. These were based on the registered marriages which are,
for all practical purposes, pure permanent sexual relationships.
Of these registered relationships 19% lasted up to one year; 37%
three to four years; 26% four to nine years; 12% ten to nineteen
years.

140 MARRIAGE AND LASTING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP

These figures show that four years is the average lengtli for the
sexual basis of a relationship. How is conservative sex reform
going to deal with this fact?

Here I would like to add a few remarks about those marriages
that are called good and “serene.” “Serene” simply means that
the conflicts are not apparent on the surface. Many marriages
are called “happy” in which quiet resignation has covered up all
conflicts. If a partner in such a marriage comes to analysis, one
is again and again astounded by the amount of unconscious and
suppressed hatred which accumulated in the course of the mar-
riage and which— without ever having been quite conscious—
finally led to a psychic disturbance. It would be a mistake to
ascribe this hatred exclusively to infantile experiences. It was
found that the transference of the hatred from a person hated
in infancy to the spouse did not take place until the marriage
situation produced conflicts which tlien reactivated infantile
difficulties. Experience shows that during an analysis such mar-
riages collapse if one analyzes without regard for the compulsive
morality of marriage; that is, if one does not, consciously or un-
consciously, evade subjects which might endanger the existing
marriage. Experience shows further that marriages which had to
stand the pressure of an analysis can continue only if the patient
regains his sexual motility and is determined not to be blindly
obedient to the strict rules of marital morality. Such obedience
always turns out to be anchored in neurotic repressions.

The analysis of married people, furthermore, reveals the fol-
lowing unequivocal facts:

I. There is no woman who does not have the so-called “pros-
titution phantasies.” Only rarely is the content of these phantasies
that of prostituting themselves. As a rule, it is the wish to have
intercourse with more than one man, the wish not to have her
sexual experience limited to one man. In our society, understand-
ably enough, such a wish easily becomes associated with tlie idea
of prostitution. Character-analytic experience destroys every ves-
tige of the belief in a monogamous constitution of women. Many
psychoanalysts hold these “prostitution phantasies” to be neurotic

THE PROBLEM OF MARRIAGE

141

and feel they must free the women from them. With such a
judgment, one has relinquished the amoral attitude necessary for
rational therapy and begins to anal)'ze only in the interest of a
pathogenic morality. The duty of the physician, however, is the
consideration of the patient’s health, that is, his sexual economy,
and not morality. If one finds that there is a contradiction be-
tween the patient’s libidinal demands and social morality, then
it is a mistake to do away with these demands as “infantile,” as
machinations of the “pleasure principle” and to invoke the neces-
sity of a “reality principle,” of “adjustment to reality,” or of
“resignation.” First one has to find out whether the sexual de-
mands arc really infantile or not, and whether the demands of
reality are acc!cptable from ihe point of view of health. A woman
wlu) satisfies her sexual demands with more than one man is not
necessarily infantile; .she just does not fit the ideological pattern of
our society . She is not sick, but is apt to fall ill if she adjusts more
to conventional morality than her sexual demands can stand.
More attention should be paid to the fact that the “good” wives,
those adjusted to reality,” that is, those who have accepted the
burden of marriage seemingly v'ithout conflict, because they are
sexually inhibited, present all the signs of a neurosis. But this
fac-t is overlooked because they are “adjusted to reality.”

2. Analysis, if it includes the social existence, shows us the
motives of the ideology of monogamy. The most important of
these are: intense identification with the parents who represented
monogamy at least to the outside, particularly identification of
the daughter with the monogamous mother. But also the op-
posite, the reaction to the strict monogamy of the mother:
neurotic polygamy. A further reason for a monogamous ideology
lies in the guilt feelings toward tlie partner, because of the
suppressed hatred against the partner who prevents sexual free-
dom. The most important motivation of the monogamous atti-
tude, however, lies in the infantile sexual prohibitions, the fear
of sexual activities acquired in childhood. The monogamous
ideology in the individual, then, is shown to be a mechanism of
powerful protection against his own sexual desires, desires which

142 MARRIAGE AND LASTING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP

know nothing of the antithesh monogamy— polygamy, but know
only gratification. The incestuous fixation to the parent of the
other sex plays an important role here; if this fixation is destroyed,
a great part of the monogamous ideology collapses. In the woman,
economic dependence is an important motivation of tlie monoga-
mous tendencies. Often, a strict moral attitude of monogamy
loosens up even witliout analytic work wlien a woman achieves
economic independence.

3. The husband's demand for his wife's fidelitv also has its
individual motives. The economic basis of monogamy does not
seem to have an immediate psycliic representation. The motives
are, in the first place, fear of a competitor, particularly one with
a superior potenev, and the narcissistic fear of the social stigma
of being a “cuckold.” A woman, when deceived, is not despised,
but pitied. This is because to the v/oman, economically depend-
ent as she is, the husband's infidelity presents a real danger. If,
on the other hand, the woman is unfaithful, this proves, in public
opinion, that the man was not able to enforce his rights, maybe
that he was not man enough in the purely sexual sense to hold
his wife. For this reason, a wife usually tolerates the husband’s
infidelity better than the husband the wife's. If the economic
interests influenced ideology directly, the opposite would be the
case. However, there are, between the economic basis of moral
concepts and those concepts themselves, all kinds of intermediary
links, such as the vanity of the husband, so that in the end the
social significance of marriage remains intact: the man is allowed
to be unfaithful, the woman is not.

b) The inherent contradiction in the institution of marriage.

The contradiction in the institution of marriage is based on the
conflict between sexual and economic interests. The demands of
the economic interests are made with great consistency and
emphasis. For a sexually intact individual it is sex-economically
impossible to submit to the conditions of marital morality, only
one partner, and that one for life. The very first prerequisite of
marriage, therefore, is a far-reaching suppression of the sexual

THE PROBLEM OF MARRIAGE

143

needs, particularly in the woman. Therefore, morality demands—
more in the case of the woman than that of the man— premarital
chastity. Not sexuality, they say, but children are the essence of
marriage (which is correct for the economic aspect of marriage,
but not for the permanent sexual relationship). Married people
are not supposed to make the sexual acquaintance of anybody
else during marriage.

No doubt, these demands are necessary for the preservation
of the marriage. But it is* these very same dematuis which under-
mine marriage, which doom it to ruin at its very beginning. The
demand for a lifelong sexual relationship creates of necessity
a revolt against the compulsion; whether tliis revolt is conscious
or unconscious, it will be all the more intense the more lively and
active the sexual needs. Tlie woman has lived in sexual abstinence
up to the marriage; in order to be able to maintain her abstinence,
she had to repress her genital demands. Now, when she gets
married, her genitality is no longer at her disposal; she remains
frigid. As soon as the charm of novelty lias worn off, she can
neither excite nor satisfy her husband. The healthier the hus-
band, the sooner will lie withdraw his interest and will seek
another woman who can give him more, and the first rift is there.
Though the man, according to social mores, has the privilege of
“sowing his wnld oats,” he is, nevertheless, supposed not to go
too far in his “escapades.” He, too, w^hen he gets married, must
repress a good deal of liis genital interests. Though this is good
for the preservation of the marriage, it is bad for the sexual
relationship, because it results in disturbances of potency. If the
w’^oman is capable of developing her genitality and begins to
develop it, she is soon disappointed by the husbands sexual
inadequacy. She will sock another partner or will suffer from
sexual stasis and develop a neurosis. In either case the marriage
has been undermined by the very thing which was to safeguard
its existence! the sex-suppressive education for marriage.

Tliere is the further fact that the increasing economic inde-
pendence of the w^oman helps her to overcome her sexual in-
hibitions; she is less tied to the house and the children and makes

144 MARRIAGE AND LASTING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP

the acquaintance of other men; the inclusion in the economic
process sets her thinking about things which previously were
not within her sphere of thinking.

Marriages could be good, at least for a certain period of time,
if there were sexual harmony and gratification. Tliis would,
however, presuppose a sex-alBrniative education, premarital sex-
ual experience, and emancipation from conventional morality.
But the very thinf^ that might make for a good marriage means at
the same time Us doom. For once sexuality is affirmed, once
inoralisin is overcome, there is no longer any inner argument
against intercourse with other partners except for a period of
time, during which faithfulness based on gratification exists (but
not for a lifetime). The ideology of marriage collapses and with it
the marriage. It is no longer marriage, but a permanent sexual
relationship. Such a relationship, because of the absence of sup-
pression of genital desires, is more apt to prove happy than
strictly monogamous marriage. In many cases, the cure for an
unhappy marriage— moralists and authoritarian law notwithstand-
ing— is marital infidelity.

Gruber writes:

Certainly there will be in every marriage? moments, or periods,
of intense dissatisfaction, when being chained to each other will
become a heavy burden. Such unfortunate disturbances will be most
easily overcome by those who entered matrimony chaste and who
have remained faitliful in marriage (Hygienp:, p. 148).

Gruber is right: the more abstinent people are before mar-
riage, the more faithful will they be in marriage. But this kind of
faithfulness is due only to the atrophy of sexuality caused by pre-
marital abstinence.

The fruitlessness of conservative marriage reform, then, is ex-
plained by the contradiction between the marriage ideology—
which causes marital misery and the need for reform— aneZ the
fact that the very form of marriage which is supposed to be re-
formed is a specific part of the social order and is economically
anchored in it. We have shown that, basically, the prevailing

THE PROBLEM OF MARRIAGE

145

sexual misery is due to the conflict between natural sexual needs
on the one hand and the ideology of extramarital abstinence and
lifelong monogamous marriage on the other hand.

The sex reformer finds that the majority of all marriages are
unhappy because there is incomplete sexual satisfaction, because
the men are clumsy and the women frigid. Thus, a sex reformer
like Van de Velde proposes the erotization of marriage; he teaches
the husbands sexual techniques and expects from this an im-
provement of the relationships. The basic idea is correct; a mar-
riage with a satisfactory erotic basis is, indeed, better than the
erotically unsatisfactory one. But he overlooks all prerequisites of
an erotization of a sexual relationship. The most important of
these would be a general afiirmation of sexuality, and premarital
sexual experience on the part of the woman. Sexual education as
it is, however, is determined by the goals: chastity of the girls,
and compulsive faithfulness of the wife. Both of these goals make
necessary a far-reaching if not complete sexual repression on the
part of the girl. That woman who is sexually undemanding,
dependent, sex-negating or at best sex-tolerating, is the most
faithful wife; in terms of conservative morality, the best wife.
A sex-aflBrmative sexual education would make the woman more
independent; thus, it would be inherently dangerous to marriage.
A sex-negative sexual education is absolutely logical from the
point of view of lifelong monogamous marriage. Conversely, the
demand for erotization of marriage contradicts the ideology of
marriage.

Thus, Professor Haberlin of Basel writes in his book. Die Ehe,
that sexual love is the true motive for marriage; he goes on to
say that “while, without sexual love a full marriage is impossible,
nevertheless, it constitutes, in marriage, the dangerous and in-
calculable element, and by its very presence, makes marital living
an eternally problematic thing.” As a consistent reactionary
scientist he then arrives at the conclusion: “Marriage must be a
companionship for life in spite of the sexual love that goes with
it.” In other words: Reactionary society has an economic interest

146

MAKKIAGE AND LASTING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP

in the institution of lifelong monogamous marriage and cannot
take sexual interests into account.

For this reason, any alleviation of the divorce laws within
authoritarian societv is practically meaningless as far as tire
masses are concerned. The divorce law means nothing but that
society, in principle, allows divorce. But is it also ready to create
those economic conditions whiclr make it possible for the woman
actually to effect it? One of the prerequisites would be that the
rationalization of production would lead to shorter hours and
better wages instead of leading to unemployment. Owing to the
economic dependence of the woman on the man and her lesser
gratification in the processes of production, marriage is a pro-
tective institution for her, but at the same time she is exploited in
it. For, she is not only the sexual object of the man and the pro-
vider of children for the state, but her unpaid work in the house-
hold indirectly increases the profit of the employer. For the man
can work at the usual low wages only on tlie condition that in the
home so and so much work is done without pay. If the employer
were responsible for the rimning of his workers’ homes, he either
would have to pay a housekeeper for them or would have to pay
them wages which would allow the workers to hire one. l^s
work, however, is done by the housewife, without remuneration.
If the wife is also employed, she has to work overtime, without
pay, if she wants to keep the home in order; if she does not do
that, the household disintegrates more or less, and the maiTiage
ceases to be a conventional marriage.

In addition to these economic difficulties there is the fact that
the woman, as a result of conventional sex education, is adapted
only to marital sex life, with all its sexual misery, compulsion
and emptiness, but also with its external calm and its settled rou-
tine which saves the average woman the necessity of thinking
about her sexuality and tlie struggles of an extramarital life. To be
conscious of her sexuality might possibly save her from a neu-
rosis but not from the sexual suffering inflicted by the con-
ventional atmosphere.

The contradictions in the institution of marriage are reflected

THE PROBLEM OF MARRIAGE

147

in the contradictions of marriage reforms. The reform of mar-
riage by erotization (as proposed by Van de Velde) is in itself
a contradiction. Such proposals as Lindsey s “Companionate Mar-
riage” are compromises. Instead of finding out the reasons for
the disintegration, one attempts to patch up what is disintegrat-
ing, guided by the principle, “Marriage is the best sex reform.”
Lindsey’s writings show clearly the jump from fact-finding to con-
ventional moralistic evaluation. He objects to a trial marriage for
moral reasons, at the same time championing the system of
companionate marriage, that is, a “legally sanctioned” relation
with legally sanctioned birth control, if one looks for the reason
for this legal sanction, one finds none save the concept that
sexual relations should be legally sanctioned. The only difference,
then, between companionate marriage and conventional marriage
would lie in birth control and the fact that it could be dissolved
without further difficulty. True, this proposal is the most far-
reaching that has been made in conservative society. Yet, one
has to realize clearly that it is bound by society, that, in it, the
economic interests of woman and child must of necessity be
placed before the requirements of sex-economy; therefore, it
cannot contribute anything to the solution of the problem of
marriage.

The facts are these; The marriage conflict cannot be solved
within the present social order, for the following reasons. On the
one hand, the sexual urge can no longer be confined in the sexual
form into which it has been forced; the result is disintegration of
the morality of marriage. On the other hand, the economic con-
dition of the woman and children make marriage necessary; the
result is continued advocacy of the existing sex form, compulsive
marriage. This conflict is only the continuation of another one on
a different level. This other conflict consists in the fact that within
the framework of authoritarian society work-democratic modes of
production develop, and marriage morality changes to the same
extent to which economic independence of the woman and col-
lectivization of working youth as well as the sexual conflict itself
give rise to sexual crises. Compulsive marriage is part and parcel

148 MARKIAGE AND LASTING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP

of the authoritarian economic system and is therefore maintained
in spite of all its critical conflicts. Its disintegration is only a
symptom of the precariousness of the authoritarian way of living
in general. Compulsive marriage disintegrates automatically with
the disintegration of its economic basis. This is what happened
in the Soviet Union.

The rapid and complete disintegration of compulsive marriage
after the revolution sliowed clearly how lacking it is in a sex-
economic foundation. The latent marriage crisis always manifests
itself in the form of the disintegration of marriage in times of
social crises. ‘‘A lowering of morals in times of crisis/' many will
say. But let us see the facts in their social context instead of
looking at them inoralistically. The disintegration of authoritarian
morality merely meant that the social revolution also led to a
sexual revolution.

As long as there is a norm for sex life in the sense of the ide-
ology of monogamy, sexual life will be externally orderly, in-
ternally chaotic and sex-uneconomic. Plainly, the advocates of
the marriage ideology do not let themselves be convinced by the
visible effects of the norm which they advocate: the general
degradation of love life, the prevailing marital misery, the sexual
misery of adolescents, sexual perversions and sexual crimes. That
being so, they will not be impressed by the further argument
that natural needs do not need the tutelage of society as long
as society does nothing to disturb their gratification. The mean-
ing of human socialization is the facilitation of the gratification
of hunger and sexual needs. Patriarchal society makes the former
diflBcult and the latter almost impossible for most people.

Will the elimination of the social standardization of sexual
life again bring to power the natural, sex-economic regulation?
It is not for us to express hope or fear; we can only study the
question of whether the development of society tends in the
direction of improving the natural conditions of material as well
as sexual economy. One thing is certain: A generally recognized
scientific and rational view of life will do away with all idols;
the health and happiness of millions of people will no longer be

THE PROBLEM OF MARRIAGE

149

sacrificed in the interest of an abstract idea of culture, an “objec-
tive spirit” or a metapliysical “morality,” No longer will so-called
socialists— as they are doing today— stoop to support a ruinous
moralistic regulation of human life with their “scientific state-
ments.”

It was supposedly the task of the social revolution to bring
about the scientific approach to life. In Russia, the social revolu-
tion took place in 1917. Let us see how it approached the sexual
problem, where it succeeded and where it failed.

PART TWO

THE STRUGGLE FOR THE “NEW LIFE” IN THE
SOVIET UNION

A NECESSARY PREAMBLE

In June, 1934, the law punishing homosexuality was reintro-
duced in the Soviet Union,^ and rumors about the persecution of
homosexuals became increasingly frequent. In their fight against
the reactionary homosexuality law, Austrian and German sex re-
formers had always pointed to the progressive S.U. which had
abolished the punishment of homosexuality.

Similarly, abortion became more and more difficult for women
with their first or second pregnancy, and abortion in general was
being more and more fought. The German birth control move-
ment had derived strong support from the Soviet attitude toward
birth control in its figlit against the political reaction. Now, the
opponents of liberal legislation regarding birth control and abor-
tion point triumphantly to the fact that the S.U. also has aban-
doned its previous attitude.

In Germany, the Verlag fiir Sexualpolitik, with the collabora-
tion of various youth organizations, the publishing house of the
Youth International and with the approval of the Youth Executive
Committee, publislied my book, Der Sexuelle Kampf der
J uGEND, with a view to developing progressive concepts and
practice in the sexological field. We kept pointing to the liberty
which the S.U. gave youth in sexual matters. Then, in 1932, the
Communist Party of Gennany prohibited the distribution of the
book; a year later the Nazis put it on the index. We hear now
that in the S.U. youth has a difficult stand against the old physi-
cians and many high state functionaries who, increasingly, return
to the old ideology of asceticism. Thus, we can no longer point
to the sexual freedom of S.U. youth, and there is confusion
among European youth who do not understand this.

We hear and read that in the S.U. the compulsive family is

i From here on abbreviated as “S.U.”

153

154

A NECESSARY PREAMBLE

again being cherished and supported. The regulation of mar-
riage as set down in .1918 is being more or less abolished. In our
fight against the reactionary marriage laws, we had always
pointed to tlie Soviet laws. The revolution had confirmed Marx’s
statement that the social revolution “puts an end to marriage.”
Now, reactionary politics triiunph: “You see, your theories are
nonsense. Even the S.U. relinqui.shes the false doctrine of the
destruction of the family. The family is and remains the basis
of society and of the state.”

We hear that the responsibility for the education of the chil-
dren is again turned over to tlie parents. In our pedagogical and
cultural work we used to point to the fact that in the S.U. the
parents were deprived of their power over the children and that
societv as a whole took over the task of caring for their educa-
tion. The collectivization of education seemed a fundamental
process in a Socialist society. Every progressive worker, every
clear- thinking mother realized and affirmed this tendency in
Sovietism. We fought the possessive tendencies and the misuse
of power on the part of the mothers and pointed out to them
that the children were not being “taken awav” from them but
that the education of the children by society relieved them of
burdens and cares. This they understood. Now the political
reaction can point out; “You see, even in the S.U. they have given
up this nonsense and are reinstating the natural, God-given
power of the parents over the children.”

We hear that the Dalton plan has long since been given up
in Soviet schools, and that the methods of teaching are becoming
more and more authoritarian. In our fight for self-government of
the children and for the elimination of the authoritarian form
of the schools, we can no longer point to the S.U.

In our fight for a rational sex education of children and
adolescents we kept pointing to the successes of the S.U. How-
ever, all we have heard for some years is that the ascetic ideology
takes on increasingly severe forms.

All in all, then, we find an inhibition of the Soviet sexual

A NECESSARY PREAMBLE 155

revolution; more than that, a regression to an authoritarian moral-
istic regulation of sex life.

We hear from many sides tliat the sexual reaction is increas-
ingly gaining the upperhand in the S.U., that the revolutionary
circles are at a loss to understand this and, consequently, are
helpless in the face of the increasing reactionary measures. This
confusion, in the S.U. as well as outside of it, raises important
questions. What has happened? Wliy does the sexual reaction
gain the upperhand? What causes the failure of the sexual revo-
lution? What is to be done? These questions agitate the mind
of every progressive sexologist today.

The argument that tlie political reaction could interfere with
an open treatment of these cmestions is erroneous.

First, the political reaction never could take the standpoint
of revolution arv sex politics against the present-dav measures
of the S.U. On the contrary: it triumphs over these measures.

Secondly, the clarification of this question M'ithin the German
and American workers’ movement is more important than con-
siderations of prestige. Confusion is harmful. In France, Hu-
manite has already demanded the preservation of the “race” and
of the “French family.” The recent Soviet measures are gen-
erally known and cannot be denied.

Tliird, there is still a possibility of coming to the aid of the
defenders of the Soviet sexual revolution. Soon it may be too late.

And last, the fighters for the social revolution have nothing
to hide from the masses. Tactical considerations in such questions
and in such times are only a hindrance; very often, they are
nothing but the expression of lack of strength to overcome
difficulties with correct active measures.

The regression in the sexual field in the S.U. is part of more
general problems of revolutionary cultural development. We
hear that in other respects also, tendencies to social self-govem-
ment give way to authoritarian rule. Only, the regression is most
outspoken in the sexual field and can be more clearly compre-
hended here than in other fields. Not without reason. The sexual

156

A NECESSARY PREAMBLE

process of a society has always been the central point of its cul-
tural process. This is seen as clearly in the family politics of
fascism as in the transition from matriarchy to patriarchy in
primitive society. It cannot be any different in the transition to
a self-governing society. In Russia also, the economic revolution,
in the first few years, went hand in hand with a sexual revolution.
This sexual revolution was the objective expression of a cultural
revolution. Without understanding the sexual process of the
S.U., its cultural process cannot be understood.

It is catastrophic when leaders of a revolutionary movement
try to defend reactionary concepts by calling sexually progressive
people “bourgeois.” Tlie regression to Tolstoy, Wagner, escapist
movie films and all kinds of trash is only an expression of the
fact that the breakthrough in the forward direction did not suc-
ceed. The connections between the inhibition of the sexual revo-
lution and the cultural regiession can only be hinted at here. It
may be possible before long to obtain the material necessary for
a clarification of the general problem of culture. However, it will
be more useful to start out by discussing its nucleus instead of
discussing the general problem of culture without a knowledge
of its basis— human structure.

Chapter VIII

THE ‘‘ABOLITION OF THE FAMILY'^

The sexual revolution in tlie S.U. started with the dissolution
of the family. The family disintegrated radically, in all strata of
the population; sooner here, later there. This process was painful
and chaotic; it caused terror and confusion. It provided an
objective proof of the correctness of the sex-economic theory of
the nature and the function of the family: the patriarchal family
is the structural and ideological place of reproduction of every
social order based on authoritarian principles. TJie abolition of
the latter automatically undermined die institution of the family.

This disintegration of the family in the social revolution was
due to the fact that the sexual needs broke the chains of the
economic and authoritarian family bonds. It represented a sepa-
ration of economy and sexuality. In patriarchy, the sexual needs
were in the service and thus under the pressure of tlie economic
interests of a minority; in primitive work-democratic matriarchy,
economy was in the service of the satisfaction of the needs-
including the sexual needs— of society as a whole; the unequivocal
tendency of the social revolution was to place economy again at
the service of the satisfaction of the needs of all who do produc-
tive work. This reversal of the relation between needs and
economy is one of die essential points of the social revolution.
Only from the point of view of this general process can the dis-
integration of the family be understood. This process would take
place rapidly, thoroughly and easily were it a matter only of the
burden of the economic family bonds and the strength of the
sexual needs thus held down. The problem is not. Why does the
family disintegrate? The reasons for this are obvious. The ques-
tion which is much more difficult to answer is. Why is this

157

158 THE ‘abolition of the family''

process so much more painful than any other effect of the revo-
lution? The expropriation of the social means of production hurts
only their owners, not the masses, the bearers of the revolution.
But the disintegration of the family hits just those who are sup-
posed to execute the economic revolution, the workers, employ-
ees and farmers. It is just at this point that the conservative
function of the family fixation reveals itself most clearly, in the
form of an inhibition in the bearer of the revolution. His fixation
to wife and children, to the home if he has one, may it be ever so
poor, his tendency to stick in a rut, etc., all this holds him back
when he is supposed to proceed to the main action, the estab-
lishment of a self-governing work-democratic society.

In the development of the fascist dictatorship in Germany, for
example, the familial fixation was a potent inhibition of revolu-
tionary forces; this fixation gave Hitler a solid basis on which to
build up an imperialistic, nationalistic ideology. In the same way,
the fixation to the family was an inhibitory factor in the revolu-
tionary collectivization of life. There is a serious contradiction be-
tween the disintegration of the social basis of the family on the
one hand and the old, tenacious familial hiunan structure on the
other hand which emotionally, though mostly unconsciously,
wishes to preserve the compulsive family. The replacement of
the patriarchal family form by the work collective is un-
doubtedly the basis of the revolutionary cultural problem. The
cry, “Away from the family!” is more often deceptive than not.
Usually those who shout the loudest are the ones with the strong-
est unconscious fixation to the family. They are the last ones to
be entrusted with the solution, theoretical and practical, of the
most difficult of all problems, that of replacing familial ties with
collective social ties. If, now, society does not succeed, simulta-
neously with the abolition of authoritarian social principles, in
dissolving also its anchoring in the psychic structure of the
family individual; if thus the familv emotions continue to exist,
an ever increasing contradiction will develop between the eco-
nomic and the cultural development of a work-democratic society.
Since only human beings with the help of machines make history,

159

TIIE “abolition of THE FAMIILy"^

but not machines alone, tlie establishment of social ownership
of the means of production may lay the foundation for a free,
self-governing society, but that does not mean that there is going
to be a free, self-governing structure built on it. The revolution
in the ideological superstructure fails to take place, because the
hearer of this revolution, the psychic structure of human beings,
was not changed.

In Trotsky’s “Everydav Questions” we find ample material con-
cerning tlie disintegration of the family during the years of 1919
and 1920. The following facts were noted:

The family, including the proletarian family, began to “dis-
integrate.” Tlie fact was not being denied, and was interpreted
in diverse ways; some were “disquieted,” others reserved, still
others did not know wliat to make of it. All agreed that they
were confronted with “some major, very chaotic process which
might soon take on a tragic form” and which “did not as yet
disclose its possibilities of a new, higher form of family order.”
Many believed that the disintegration of the workers’ family
resulted from a “bourgeois influence on the proletariat.” Others
considered this a misinterpretation, pointing out that it was a
matter of a much deeper and more complex problem; that the
main process lav in the pathological and critical “evolution of
the proletarian familv” itself, the first chaotic stages of which
they were witnessing.

They pointed out that the process of disintegration of the
family was far from concluded, that, rather, it was still in full
swing. That everyday^ life was much more conservative than
economy, among other things because it was much less conscious
than the latter. It was further noted tliat the disintegration of
the old family was not limited to the top strata which were most
exposed to the new conditions, but went far beyond the avant-
garde. The opinion was expressed tliat the revolutionary avant-
garde was only affected earlier and more intensively by a process
which was inevitable for the whole class.

Husband as well as. wife were more and more absorbed by
public functions; this lessened the demands which the family

160 THE “abolition of the family”

could make on its members. Adolescents began to grow up in the
collectives. Thus arose a competition between family obligations
and social obligations. The latter, however, were new and young,
while the family ties were old and pervaded every corner of
everyday life and of the psychic structure. The sexual emptiness
of the average marriage could not compete with the life-affirma-
tive sexual relationships in the collectives. All this happened on
the basis of an increasing elimination of the strongest family tie,
the economic whiphand of the father over wife and children.
The economic tie was broken, and with it the sexual inhibition.
But that did not yet mean “sexual freedom.” External freedom
for sexual happiness is not yet sexual happiness. The latter pre-
supposes, first of all, the psychic capacity to create and to enjoy
it. In the family, healthv sexual needs, as a rule, had been re-
placed by infantile attitudes and pathological sexual habits. The
family members would hate each other, consciously or uncon-
sciously, and would drown out this hatred with a forced affection
and sticky dependence which hid the underlying hatred only
insufficiently. One of the main difficulties was tlie inability of the
women— genitally crippled and unprepared for economic inde-
pendence as they were— to give up the sku e-like protection of
the family and tlie substitute gratification which lay in their
domination over tlie children. The woman, because her whole
life was sexually empty and economically dependent, had made
the upbringing of her children the content of her life. Any
restriction of this relationship, though it may have been for the
good of the children, she experienced as a serious deprivation
and fought against it. Understandably enough; it was her most
important substitute gratification. Gladkows novel New Earth
shows that the fight for the development of the collective met
no difficulty which could in any way compare with this fight of
the women for the old home, family and children. The collectivi-
zation of life took place as a result of decrees from above and
support of revolutionary youth who broke the chains of parental
authority. But every average individual was inhibited, in every
step in the direction of collectivization, by the family ties, par-

161

THE “abolition OF THE FAMIILy”

ticularly by his own unconscious familial dependence and longing.

All these diflSculties and conflicts which appeared in everyday
hving were by no means the expression of an “accidental” and
“chaotic” condition resulting from people s “stupidity” or “im-
morahty”; ratlier, this condition arose according to a definite law
which governs tlie relationship between the sexual forms and the
forms of social organization.

In primitive society, which has a collective and work-demo-
cratic organization, the unit is the clan, comprising all the blood
relatives of a common mother. Within this clan, which is also the
economic unit, tliere is no other marriage than the loose ties of
a sexual relationship. To the extent to which, as a result of
economic changes, the clan becomes subject to the potentially
patriarchal family of the chief, the clan disintegrates. Family and
clan enter an antagonistic relationship. In the place of the clan,
tlie family becomes more and more the economic unit and tlius
the germ of the patriarchy. The chief of the matriarchal clan
organization, originally in harmony with the clan society, gradu-
ally turns into the patriarch of the family, thus acquires economic
preponderance and increasingly develops into the patriarch of
the whole tribe. The first class difference, then, is tliat between
the family of the chief and the lower clans of the tribe.

In the succeeding development from matriarchy to patriarchy,
the family acquires, in addition to its economic function, the far
more significant function of changing the human structure from
that of the free clan member to that of the suppressed family
member. The East Indian family of today illustrates this function
most clearly. By differentiating itself from tlie clan, the family
becomes not only the source of the class distinction, but also of
social suppression within and outside of itself. The “family man”
who now develops helps to reproduce the patriarchal class or-
ganization. The basic mechanism of this reproduction is the
change from sex-aflBrmation to sex-negation; its basis is the eco-
nomic domination of the chief.

Let us summarize tlie essential points of this psychic change:
The relationship between clan members, which was free and

162 THE “abolition of the family”

voluntary, based only on common vital interests, is replaced by a
conflict between economic and sexual interests. Voluntary
achievement in work is replaced by compulsive work and rebel-
lion against it; natural sexual sociality is replaced by the demands
of morality; voluntary, happy, love relationship is replaced by
“marital duty”; clan solidarity is replaced by familial ties and
rebellion against them; sex-economically regulated life is replaced
by genital repression, neurotic disturbances and sexual perver-
sions; tlie naturally strong, self-reliant biological organism be-
comes weixk, helpless, dependent, fearful of God; the orgastic
experiencing of nature is replaced by mystical ecstasy, “religious
experience” and unfulfilled vegetative longing; the weakened ego
of the indmdual seeks strength in the identification with the
tribe, later the “nation,” and with the chief of the tribe, later the
patriarch of the tribe and the king of the nation. With that, the
birth of the vassal structure has taken place; tlie structural anchor-
ing of human subjugation is secured.

The social revolution in the S.U., in its initial phases, revealed
the renewed reversal of this process: the re-establishment of
primitive work-democratic conditions on a higher, civilized level,
and the revolution from sex-negation to sex-affirmation.

According to Marx, one of the chief tasks of the social revolu-
tion is the abolition of the family. (With that, of course, is meant
the compulsive family.) What Marx had deduced theoretically
from the social process was later confirmed by the development
of social organization in the S.U. The old family began to be
replaced by an organization which had certain similarities with
the old clan of primitive society: the socialist collective in school,
youth communes, etc. The difference between the old clan and
the socialist collective is that the former is based on blood rela-
tionship and becomes an economic unit on that basis; the socialist
collective, on the other hand, is not based on blood relationship
but on common economic functions; the economic unit necessarilv
leads to personal relationships which finally make it also a sexual
collective. Just as in primitive society the family destroyed the
clan, so does the economic collective destroy the family. The

163

THE “abolition OF THE FAMULy”

process is reversed. If the compulsive family is uplield ideologi-
cally or stiucturally, the development of the collective is in-
hibited. If the collective is incapable of overcoming this inhibi-
tion, it is destroyed by tlie familial structure of its members, as
happened in tlie youth communes ( cf. Chapter XII ) . The process
taking place in the early phases of collectivistic development is
characterized by the following conflict: The conflict between
economic collective with its sex-affirmative striving toward sexual
independence on the one hand, and the familial, dependent,
sex-negative structure of the individuals on the other hand.

Chapter IX

THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION

1. PROGRESSIVE LEGISLATION

Soviet sexual legislation was the clearest expression of the first
attack of the sexual revolution on the reactionary sexual order.
This legislation literally put upside down most of tlie traditions.
It will be shown that where this change was not complete, the
sexual reaction soon made headway. In order to better under-
stand the antithesis between sex-moralistic and sex-economic
regulation, one has to compare the revolutionary legislation with
the earlier Tsaristic one. It is not necessary to show in detail that
tlie liberalistic and ‘‘democratic’" sexual laws are in principle no
different from the Tsaristic ones, and that, as far as sexual sup-
pression is concerned, tlie difference is only slight. The measures
for a sex-moralistic authoritarian regulation are basically always
the same. To point this out is important because the argument
has been raised tliat the Soviet measures only replaced the capi-
talistic order by another authoritarian order, that, for example,
the Soviet marriage law was nothing but the abolition of sup-
pression, and not a basically different regulation. The essence of
sex-economy, however, is just this fundamental difference.

To begin witli, here is an example from the Tsaristic laws:

Art. 1()6: The husband is held to love his wife like his own body,
to live in harmony with her, to help her when she is ill. He is held
to provide for her according to his situation and ability.

Art. 107: The wife is held to obey her husband as the head of the
family, to remain with him in love, respect and unlimited obedience,
to do him every favor and show him all affection as a housewife.

Art. 164: The ri^rJUs of parents: The power of the parents extends
to all children of either sex and of any age . . .

164

PROGRESSIVE LEGISLATION

165

Art. 165: The parents have the right, for the improvement of ob-
streperous and disobedient children, to use corrective measures at
homo. If these are unsuccessful, the parents have the right

1) to have their children, of either sex, put in prison for willfully
disobeying parental power, for immoral living or other obvious vices;

2) to start proceedings against tlie children at a court of law. The
punishment for willful disobedience of the parental power, immoral
living and other obvious vices, is imprisonment for 2 to 4 months,
without a special investigation by the courts. In such cases, the
parents have the right to have the sentence shortened or suspended
as they see fit.

Let us see how the moral authoritarian regulation is expressed
here. Clearly, the spouses are forced into a moral obligation with
legal backing. The husband must love his wife, whether he can
or not; the wife must be the obedient hausfrau; to change a situa-
tion which has become desolate is impossible. The law goes as far
as demanding of the parents the use of their power in the interests
of the authoritarian state: against “willful disobedience of the
parental power” ( which is identical with the power of the state )
in the interests of producing vassal structures in the children;
against “immoral living and other obvious vices,” in the interest
of securing the means of producing this structure. In the face of
such naively candid avowal on the part of the patriarchal order
it is inconceivable that the revolutionary movement does not
have a better comprehension of sexual suppression as the essential
means of human subjugation. Sex-economy did not have to dis-
cover the content and mechanisms of suppression; they are as
clear as day in all patriarchal legislation and patriarchal culture.
The problem is, rather, why this is not seen, wh)^ the powerful
weapons which this candor provides are not used. The Tsarist,
like any other reactionary sexual legislation, confirms and openly
portrays the sex-economic concept: The purpose of the authori-
tarian moral order is sexual subjugation. Wherever one finds
moral regulation and its main expedient, sexual suppression, real
freedom is out of tlie question.

The significance ascribed to the sexual revolution by the social

166

THE SEXUAL BEVOLUTION

revolution is evidenced by the fact that Lenin, as early as Decem-
ber 19 and 20, 1917, issued two relevant decrees. One was “About
the dissolution of marriage”; true, its content was not as unequivo-
cal as its title. The other was, “About civil marriage, children
and the registration of marriages.” Both laws deprived the hus-
band of his prerogatives of domination in the family, gave the
woman the complete right to economic and sexual determination
and declared it to be a matter of couise that the woman could
freely determine her name, domicile and citizenship. Of course,
tliese laws did in themselves nothing but guaranti:o externally
free development to a process which was still to conic. It was a
matter of course that the revolutionary law intended the abo-
lition of patriarchal power. Depriving the ruling class of power
meant at tire same time the elimination of the power of the father
over the members of the family, and of the representation of the
state within the family as the structure-forming ct;ll of the class
society. If the connection between the authorilariau slate and the
patriarchal family, the place where it is structurally reproduced,
had been clearly recognized and practically managed, the revo-
lution would have been saved not only many useless discussions
and failures but also a great many regrettable regressions. In
particular, one would have known what to do with the representa-
tives of the old ideology and morality who began to muster their
forces. They held the highest posts while the leaders of the
revolutionary movement had no idea of the damage these func-
tionaries were doing.

Divorce was made very easy. A sexual relationship which was
considered a “marriage” could be as easily dissolved as it had
been established. The only criterion was mutual agreement
among the partners. No one could force somebody else into a
relationship; there was only the free determination of the part-
ners. Under these circumstances, “reasons for divorce” became
meaningless. When a partner wanted to relinquish a sexual com-
panionship he did not have to give reasons. Marriage and divorce
became purely private matters.

The registration of a relationship was not mandatory. Even

PROGRESSIVE LEGISLATION

167

when a relationship was registered, sexual relationships with
others were “not prosecuted.” However, not telling the partner
about another relationship was considered “fraud.” Tlie obliga-
tion to pay alimony was considered only a “transition measure.”
The obligation lasted for six montlis after the separation and
only if the partner was unemployed or otherwise incapable of
making a living. That the obligation to pay alimony was thought
of only as a transitory measure goes without saying in view of
tlie Soviet tendency to establi.sh full economic independence of
all members of society. It liad the function of helping over the
first difficulties which stood in the way of establishing full per-
sonal and economic freedom. It has to be remembered that the
compulsive family was only legally abolished, but not in reality.
For as long as society cannot guarantee security to all adults and
adolescents, this guarantee remains tlie function of the family
and thus causes it to continue. Thus, registration as well as
alimony were tliouglit of as transitory measures. If a man had
lived in a registered marriage for some time and had provided
for his family, it was to the disadvantage of his family if he took
on new obligations. If he failed to let his wife know about such
new obligations, he undoubtedly defrauded her. This familial
situation represents a contradiction of the meaning of the Soviet
law which explicitly guaranteed personal freedom, even in rela-
tionships with several partners.

We see here for the first time a practical contradiction between
the Soviet ideology of freedom and the actual conditions of
familial living. Tlie interest of the not yet independent woman
in alimony is at variance with the striven-for freedom. We will
later encounter many such contradictions. What is important is
not that such contradictions existed, but in what form they were
solved, that is, whether the solution was in the direction of the
original goal of freedom, or in the direction of regression and
inhibition.

Thus, Soviet legislation shows elements which ideologically
anticipate the desired final result, and on the other hand, ele-
ments which take into account a period of transition. It is neces-

168

THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION

sary to follow, from tlie begiiiiiiiig, the dynamic course of these
contradictions between the desired goal and momentary condi-
tions. Only then will we understand the progressive inhibition of
the sexual revolution in Soviet Russia.

Lenin is often called to witness in support of cultural and sexual
reactionary attitudes. It is useful to remember, therefore, how
clearly Lenin saw that legislation alone was no more than a
beginning of a sexual and cultural revolution.

The discussions concerning tlie ‘'new regulation of personal
and cultural life” among the general population lasted for years.
They showed an activity and an enthusiasm which onh^ people
can have who have just thrown oil lieavy chains and have clearly
recognized that they have to start their H\ es all over again. These
discussions of the “sexual cjuestion” started at the beginning of
the revolution, increased more and more, and finally died down.
Why they died down and gave way to a regressive movement is
exactly what this book attempts to make eomprelmnsible. It is
significant that in 1925, at the time wlien these discussions of the
sexual revolution were at their height, the commissar Kursky felt
he had to preface a new draft of marital legislation with a quota-
tion from Lenin:

Certainly, laws alone won't do, and we will in no case be satisfied
with decrc'es alone. As to legislation, however, we have done every-
thing that was asked of us to make the position of the woman equal
to that of the man. We have a right to be proud: At present, the
position of the woman in the Soviet Union is such tluit even from
the standpoint of the most progressive nations it would have to be
called ideal. In spite of that, we say it is nothing but a beginning.

A beginning of what? If one studies those discussions, one
finds that the conservatives had the advantage of all the argu-
ments and “proofs.” The progressives, the revolutionaries, felt
very clearly that they w^ere not able to put this “new” thing into
words. They fought valiantly, but finally tired and failed in the
discussion, partly because they themselves were caught in old
concepts from which they were unable to shake loose.

WABNING VOICES FROM AMONG THE WORKERS 169

The contradictions in this most tragic of all revolutionary strug-
gles have to he comprehended thoroughly so that one will be
better prepared against the sexual reaction when the time comes
when society becomes again aware of its task of reorganizing
human living.

In the S.U., people were prepared neither theoretically nor
practically for the difGculties which the cultural revolution
brought with it. These difficulties were due partly to the ignorance
of the psychic' structure of a generation M'hicli was being taken
over from the I’saristic patriarchate, partly to the transitional
character of the times.

2. WARNING VOICES FROM AMONG THE WOR KE RS

There is a common belief tliat the most essential part of the
Soviet sexual revolution was its legislation. However, legislation
or any other formal change has social significance only if it really
“reaches the masses,” that is, if it changes their psychic structure.
Only in this way can an ideology or a program become a revolu-
tionary power of historical dimensions: only if it achieves a deep-
reaching change in tlie emotions and instinctual life of the masses.
For the famous “subjective factor of history” is nothing but the
psychic structure of the masses. It is what determines the de-
velopment of society, be it by passively tolerating despotism and
suppression, be it l)^' adjustment to tliC teclmical processes of
development instituted by the powers that be, or be it, finally,
by actively taking part in the social development, as, for example,
in a revolution. No concept of historical development can be
called revolutionary if it considers the p.sychic stnicture of the
masses as nothing but the result of economic processes, and not
also as their motive power.

Consequently, the effect of the sexual revolution cannot be
judged by the laws that were passed (which only indicate the
then revolutionary spirit of the leaders), but only by their effect
on the masses of people, and by tlie final outcome of this struggle
for the “new life.” We must ask, tlien: How did the masses react
to the legislative changes? How did the minor functionaries of

170

THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION

the party, who were in close contact with the masses, react?
What, finally, was tlie later attitude of the leaders?

This is what Alexandra Kollontay, a person long interested in
the sexual problem, reports in The New Morality and the
Working Class, p. 65ff. :

The longer the sexual crisis lasts, the more difficult it becomes. With
every attempt at a solution, things become more and more difficult.
It seems as if people were unable to see the only wa}’ which would
lead to a solution. The frightened people fall from one extreme into
the other, and the sexual problem remains unsolved. The sexual crisis
does not even spare the peasants. Lil;e an infectious disease which
respects neither wealth nor position, it visits castles as well as the dull
abodes of workers and peasants ... It would be a tremendous error
to assume that only members of the economically secure classes are
caught in its toils. The sexual crisis creates dramas among the working
people which are no less violent or tragic tlian the psychological
conflicts of the refined bourgeoisie.

In other words, tlie crisis of sexual life, of the small, private life,
of family life, was at hand. The new marriage legislation, the
"abolition of marriage,” had only eliminated external hindrances.
The real sexual revolution took place in actual everyday life. At
first, the fact tliat the leaders of a state occupied themselves with
tlie sexual problem was in itself a small revolution. But later on
the minor functionaries took hold of the problem. The collapse
of the old order resulted, at first, in nothing but chaos. But the
simple, uneducated bearers of the revolution approached the
monster courageously, while the "educated” and refined academi-
cians wrote "treatises” or were completely unaware of the
historical processes which were taking place.

In a booklet, Questions of Exteryday Life, Trotsky called the
attention of the Soviet public to the small questions of ev^eryday
life. But the sexual question he failed to mention. He had the
functionaries speak their mind about practical everyday prob-
lems. As it turned out, they spoke mostly about the "family
question.” But not about legal or sociological problems of the

WARNING VOICES FROM AMONG THE WORKERS

171

family, but about the difficulties of the sexual life. Previously,
this had been strictly associated with the economic unit of the
family; now that the family was disintegrating, the sexual life
posed entirely new problems.

During the first few years of the revolution, the minor func-
tionaries showed an excellent attitude. The beginning of the
sexual revolution was entirely correct not only in its legislative
aspect but also in the way in which people were able to see diffi-
culties and to formulate questions. A few examples will illustrate
this.

The functionary Kosakov expressed himself as foDows:

Externally, family life has changed, that is, one has a more simple
attitude toward it. But the basic evil has not changed, that is, the
daily cares of the family member arc not any lighter, and the domi-
nance of one family member over the others continues to exist.
People strive for collective living, and if family cares make this im-
possible, they become restless and neurasthenic.

As we see, Kosakov, in a very few sentences, has comprehended
the following problems:

1. Externally, the family has changed; internally, everything
is as it alwavs was;

2. The family acted as a brake on the development of collective
living;

3. The familial inhibition damaged the psychic health of its
members; that means, it reduced their abilitv to work and their
joy in work and produced psychic disturbances.

The following utteraTiccs disclose the effect of the economic
revolution on tlie progressive disintegration of the family.

Kobosev: “Undoubtedly, the revolution has produced a great
change in the family life of the worker. Especially when both husband
and wife are working, the wife considers herself economically inde-
pendent and having equal rights. Certain prejudices, such as that the
husband is the head of the family, are being overcome. The patri-
archal family disintegrates. In the workers’ as well as the peasants’

172 THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION

families, tlierc is a strong tendency to separation, to independent
living, as soon as the material basis for existence makes itself felt.”

Kulkov: ‘‘Undoubtedly, the revolution has changed family life, the
attitudes toward the family and toward the emancipation of the
woman. The husband is accustomed to consider himself the head of
the family ... In addition, there is the religious question, the denial
of petitdxjurgeois needs to the woman. Since, however, not much can
be done with the means at hand, there are scandals. The wife, on her
part, asks for more freedom, for the right to leave the children some-
wh('re, to go with the husband more often where he gO(\s. This is the
cause of all kinds of scandals and scenes, which often lead to divorce.
The Communists, when confronted with these problems, usually say
that the family, and especially any quarrels between husband and
wife, are a private matter.”

The diflScullics wliich are here called ''the religious question”
and the “denial of petit-bourgeois needs to the woman” we can
unhesitatingly assume to be the expression of the conflict between
family ties and the urge for sexual freedom. Scandals as a result
of the lack of material facilities, such as lack of rooms, were, of
course, inevitable. The attitude that “sexuality is a private
matter” was unfortunate; it was essentially an expression of the
inability of the membei's of the Communist party to manage the
revolution in their own personal lives; therefore, they took refuge
in a legal formula. This was well expressed by the functionary
Markov who said;

I wish to point out the disastrous consequences of our misinterpre-
tation of the concept of “free love.” The result was that the Com-
munists put a multitude of cluldren in the world . . . The war has
given us untold cripples. This misconception of free love will give
us more and worse cripples. We have to come out and state frankly
that we have done nothing in the way of education in this field which
would give the workers a correct conception of these things. More
tlian that, we must admit that when we will be asked these questions, ‘
we will be unable to answer tliem.

It was not that the Communists lacked the courage to tackle

WARNING VOICES FROM AMONG THE WORKERS 173

these tasks; as will be shown, there was not suflRcient knowledge
to solve the difficulties. Seen from the point of view of the later
development, tliese utterances already pointed to the tragedy
which was to come. The functionary Koltsov pointed out:

These questions are never discussed. It is as if for some reason they
were being avoided. I myself have never given them serious thought,
they are new to me. They are extremely important and should be
discussed.

The functionary Finkovsky recognized one of the reasons for
this avoidance:

The subject is rarely talked about because U hits home too closely
with everybody . . . The Communists usually point to the golden
future and thus avoid going into acute problems . . . The workers
know that in the Communist families things are even worse in this
respect than in their own.

Tseitlin said the following:

In the literature, the problems of marriage and family, of the rela-
tions betw^een man and woman, are not discussed at all. Nevertheless,
these are exactly the questions tchich interest the xvorkers, male and
female alike. When such questions are going to be the topic of our
meetings, they know about it and flock to our meetings. The masses
feel that we hush up these problems, and in fact we do hush tlieni
up. I know that some people say that the Communist party has no
definite views on these problems. And yet, the workers, both male
and female, keep asking these questions and find no answers to them.

Such views and attitudes of workers, people who have no
sexological schooling but derive all their knowledge from life
itself, are wwth more than any learned treatises on the "Sociology
of the Family.” They show that the abolition of the authoritarian
system brought forth a critique and faculties of thought which
previously had been hidden. Tseitlin, for example, without any
sexological training or knowledge, described exactly what Ls

174

THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION

contended by sex-economy: The interest of the mass individual
is not political hut sexual. He clearly saw how the masses criti-
cized— although perhajjs not explicitly— the avoidance of sexual
problems on the part of the revolutionary leaders. He realized
that they had no clear views on the subject and therefore avoided
it. And yet that was exactly the problem which the masses wanted
to have solved.

The functionaries pointed cmpliatically to people’s interest in
sexual clarity and a new regulation of sexual relationships.
People asked for gocxl and low-priced informative literature.
They talked of “family” and meant “sexuality.” They knew that
what was old was outworn and untenable, but they tried to deal
with the new things in terms of the old, or, worse, in purely
economic terms. In concrete terms it looked somewhat like this,
as described by Lyssciiko: Children in the street “behaved badly.”
For example, they played “Red Army.” One recognized in that
a “tinge” of militarism, but thought it, nevertheless, “good.” But
at times one would see “worse” kinds of play, that is, sexual
playing, and was astonished that nobody interfered. But one
racked one’s brains how one might lead children “on the right
path.” The revolutionary element was apparent in the right
instinct tliat one should not interfere; the conservative sexual
anxiety led to concern. Had the new way of thinking not come
into conflict with the old in the form of sexual anxiety, one would
not have worried about leading the children on the “right,” tliat
is, asexual, path; instead, one would have closely observed the
sexual manifcsta.lioris of tlie children and would have asked
oneself how infantile sexuality should be treated. But because
childhood and sexuality did not seem to belong together, people
became afraid and considered natural manifestations degeneracy.

Revolutionaries warned, “We are often told that we talk only
about world-embracing problems. We should rather talk about
the problems of everyday life.” Concretely, with regard to the
children’s playing, this meant:

1. Should we act in favor of these plays or against them?

2. Is the sexuality of the children natural or not?

WARNING VOICES FROM AMONG THE WORKERS 175

3. How shall we understand and regulate the relationship
between infantile sexuality and work?

The control commissions were worried. The functionaries said:
“There is no reason for concern. The Communist will go and
live with tlie workers and will ket^p them in check. If we did not
live with them we would lose contact with the masses.” But the
task was not simply that of keeping contact with the masses, but
that of using the contact for concrete solutions. To tr)^ to “keep
the masses in check” meant that one did not know what to do
with the new manifestations of life which had just thrown off
the shackles of authoritarian power; it meant, furthermore, re-
placing it with a new authoritarian power in the old sense. The
task was, however, that of establishing a new kind of authority,
one which would enable the masses to develop independence so
that they finally could do witliout autliority constantly watching
over them.

The leaders, without being able to formulate their dilemma,
were confronted by the alternative of breaking through to new
forms of living or of returning to the old. Since tlie Communist
party had no concept of the sexual revolution, since, furthermore,
Engels historical analysis explained on1\' tlie social background
but not tlie nature of the revolution which was taking place, a
struggle developeil which clearly demonstrates to all future
generations the birth pangs of a cultural revolution.

At first one consoled oneself by pointing to tlie lack of the
purely economic prerequisites. But the attitude, “first the eco-
nomic questions, i]:en those of everyday life” was wrong and only
an expression of the unpreparedness for the seemingly chaotic
forms of the cultural revolution. Often it was an evasion. True,
a society which is exhausted by civil war, which is unable imme-
diately to establish public kitchens, laundries, and kindergartens,
must think first of all of the economic prerequisites. They are
indeed the prerequisites for a cultural revolution, particularly
in sexual life. But it was not just a matter of lifting the masses to
the cultural level of the capitalist countries; that was only the
most immediate task. It was also necessary to become clear as to

176

THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION

the nature of the “new culture,” the “Socialist, revolutionary”
culture.

At first, nobody was to blame. Wliat had happened was that
the revolution had encountered unexpected problems and the
means of dealing with them could be found only when these
dfficulties had fully developed and required a practical solution.
A retrogressive development was unavoidable. The fact should
be remembered that this was the first successful social
revolution. The struggle to comprehend its purely economic and
political prerequisites was enormous. But today it is clear that
the cultural revolution posed infinitelij more difficult problems
than the political revolution. This is easy to understand. The
political revolution recpiires essentially nothing but a strong,
trained Icadersliip and tl^e confidence of the masses in it. The
cultural revolulion, liowever, requires an alteration of the psychic
structure of the mass individual. About this, there was hardly any
scientific, let alone practical concept at that time. Here are a few
glimpses of the result as it presented itself in 1935:

On August 29, 1935, tlie Welthiihne published an alarming
article by Louis Fischer on the increase of reactionary sexual
ideologies in the S.U. The fact that a Communist periodical pub-
lished the article bears witness to the dangcrousness of the
situation. The article points out the following facts:

In tlic overc'rowded city apartments, the youths find no room
for a sexual life. Tlie girls are being reminded that abortion is
harmful, dangerous and undesirable, that it is much better to
have babies. A film, “The Private Life of Peter Winogradow”
makes propaganda for conventional marriage. “A film,” writes
Fischer, “that would find the approval of the most conservative
circles in conservative countries.” In the Pravda one reads: “In
the Soviets, the family is a big and serious thing.” Fischer is of
the opinion that the Bolsheviks never really did anything about
the family. True, they knew that there had been times in history
when the family had not existed, they also admitted, theoretically,
the dissolution of tlu' family, but tliey had not abolished it; on
the contrary, tliey had supported it. The regime, now that it no

WARNING VOICES FROM AMONG THE WORKERS 177

longer had to fear the bad influence of the parents, welcomed its
“necessary moral and cultural influence,” that is, the sex-sup-
pressing influence of tlie adult generation on the new generation.

An editorial in tlie Pravda in 1935 stated tliat only a good
family man could be a good Soviet citizem “A thing like that
would have been inconceivable in 1923,” writes I'isc hcr. Similarly,
statements like the following: “If anybody still contends that
interest in the family is a petit-bourgeois eliaractcristic*, he belongs
lumself to the lowest category of petit-bourgeois.” Prohibition of
abortion in the case of the first child would probably do away
with man)' a love affair and with promiscuity and would further
“serious marriage.” Newspaper articles bv professors about the
great luirm done b)' abortion became more aiid more numerous.

When the daily press continues to thunder against abortion;
when this propaganda is ac'companicd by the glorification of
festive marriage ceremonies; when the sanctity of iiiarital duty is
emphasized and motliers of triplets and qiuidruplets receive
special prizes; when articles are written about women who nev^er
resorted to abortion; when an underpaid school teacher, mother
of four children, receives public praise because she did not refuse
having a fifth child, “in spite of the difficulties of feeding them
all”— then, writes Fischer, one thinks of Mussolini. Girls who
resist sexual temptation are no longer considered “conservative”
or even “counterrevolutionary.” “Tlie basis of the family should
be love and not the satisfaction of physical needs.”

These few excerpts show that the sexual ideology of the leading
groups in the S.U. is no longer any different from the ideology
of the leading groups in any conservative country. There is,
undoubtedly, a regression to conservative sexual moralism.

The official ideology of the S.U. had its effect also in Western
Europe. The Hurnaniie of October 31, 1935, wrote the following:

Save the family! Plelp us in our great inquiry in the interest of the
right to love. It is a well-known fact that the birth rate in France is
decreasing at an alurming rate . . . The Communists are confronted
by a very grave situation. The country which they are to revolutionize.

178 THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION

the Frencli world, runs the danger of being crippled and depopulated.

The maliciousness of a dying capitalism, its immorality, the egoism it
creates, the misery, the clandestine abortions which it provokes, (Icstrofj
the famili/. The Communists want to fight in the defense of the French
famihf. They have definitely broken with the petit-bourgeois, indi-
vidualistic and anarchic tradition which makes an ideal of sterilization.

I’hey want to take over a strong country and a fertile race. The
U.S.S.R. points the way. But it is necessary wiinediatelij to take active
measures to save the race.

in rnv book, Tim jMisFOinxrNE of Bfjno Young I have enumerated
tile d;ilic\ lilies ol present-day youth in (\stablishing a home, and have
defended tluir right to love.

The right to love, lova‘ of the man arid the woman, lov^e of the
children for the parents, of the parents for the children, this is
the subj(‘ct of our new inquiry . . . which will be aided by the
letters from our readers who report on their difficulties, thc'ir anxieties
and hoj)es. An inquin^ of tlie means for saving the French family by
giving inolherhood and childhood, hij giving families with niantj chil-
dren the place and the advantages which tlu'v must have in the
country. Write to us, youths, fathers and mothers . . .

P. Vaillant-Couturier.

This is how a Communist thinks who vies with the National
Socialists in the race theory and the advocacy of the family with
many cliildrcn. Such an article in a Socialist organ is catastrophic.
The competition is hopeless: the Fascists are ever so much better
at this business.

Arrogant criticism and fault-finding would be a sure sign of
ignorance in this situation. The most important thing is respect
for the magnitude, complexity and diversity of the tasks at hand.
This respect is the most important prerequisite of the necessary
courage and seriousness which such historical processes require.

In the Russian cultural revolution, the ‘new life” broke
through, but it was not understood, and the Old put on the
brakes. Old ways of thinking and feeling sneaked into the new
ways. The New first liberated itself from the Old, fought for a
clear expression, failed to find it and thus sank back.

We must try to understand in which way the Old smothered

WARNING VOICES FROM AMONG THE WORKERS 179

the New if we are to avoid having the same thing happen another
time.

We must learn from the Russian revolution that the economic
revolution, the social ownership of the social means of production
and the political establishment of social democracy (dictatorship
of the proletariat) goes automatically hand in hand with a
revolution in attitudes toward sexuality tmd in sexual rclation-
.ships. Like the economic and political revolution, the sexual
revolution must also be consciously comprehended and guided
in a forward direction.

But what does this “forward direction,” which is preceded by
a collapse of the old, look like concretely? Few people know how
burning was the struggle for the “new life,” for a satisfactory sex
life, in the Soviet Union.

Chapter X

THE INHIBITION OF THE SEXUAL
REVOLUTION

1. THE BACKGROUND OF THP: INHTBTTION

Arouucl .1923, ii certain development becaine more apparent
which was aimed a^ahist the revolutionary changes in personal
and cultural life; it was not until the years between 1933 and
1935 that it also became tangible in regressive legislative meas-
ures. This oroccss constitutes an inhibition of the sexual and

cultural revolution in the S.U. Before entering upon the chief
characteristics of this inhibition, we have to familiarize ourselves
with some of its prerequisites.

Economico-politically, tlie Russian revolution was guided en-
tirely and consciously by the Marxist theory of economics and
politics. All economic processes were seen in the light of the
theory of historical materialism. But as far as the cultural revo-
lution was concerned— to say nothing of its core, the sexual
revolution— neither Marx nor Engels had provided any investiga-
tions which could have guided the leaders of the revolution.
Lenin himself, in criticizing a book by Ruth Fischer, stressed the
fact that the sexual revolution, like the sexual social process in
general, was not at all understood from the standpoint of dialectic
materialism, and that its mastery would require a tremendous
experience. He thought that if anybody would comprehend this
problem in its totality and real significance, he would do the
greatest service to the revolution. As we have seen, the func-
tionaries were aware of the fact that here was a new field for
investigation. Trotsky also pointed out again and again how new
and how little understood was the field of cultural and sexual
revolution.

180

THE BACKGROUND OF THE INHIBITION 181

The first reason for the inhibition of tlie sexual revolution, then,
was the fact that there was no theory of the sexual revolution.

A second reason was the fact that all those wlio should have
guided this spontaneous revolution were caught in old concepts
and formalisms. To mention only a few of these erroneous con-
cepts: the idea that being sexual is incompatible with being social,
the assumption of an antithesis of sexuality and sociality. Further,
the idea that sexuality meant a diversion from the class struggle.
The question was not raised as to what kind of sexuality meant a
diversion from the class struggle, nor under w4iat conditions the
sexual crisis could be made part of the class struggle. Instead,
they believed that sexuality in itself was at variance with die class
struggle. Another erroneous concept was the alleged incompati-
bility of sexuality and culture, their absolute antithesis. Further-
more, the whole problem of the sexual process and of sexual
gratification was obscured by talking about “family” instead of
“sexuality.” Even a superficial glance at the history of sexual
reforms wHuld have shown that the patriarchal family is by no
means an instilution for the protection of sexual gratification. It
is, on the contrary, at variance with it. It is essentially an eco-
nomic institution and creates a conflict between economic and
sexual needs.

Another reason for the inhibition of tlm sexual revolution was
the erroneous concepts of the sexual revolution. According to
these concepts, the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the in-
stitution of Soviet legislation had in themselves “brought about”
the sexual revolution; or tlie sexual questio:i would “solve itself”
once the proletariat was in power. What was overlooked was the
fact that the power of the proletariat and sexual legislation could
do no more than create the external conditions for a changed
sexual life. Acquiring a building lot does not mean having the
building; it means that the task of building only begins. The fol-
lowing is an example of these misconceptions (G. G. L. Alex-
ander, Moscow, in Die Internationale y 1927);

The solution of the great social problem, the abolition of the private

182

THE INHIBITION OF THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION

means of production, solved also, in principle, tlie problem of mar-
riage which is basically an economic problem . . . The Communist
concept is that with the gradual realization of a basically diHerent
organization of social living the marriage problem will disappear as a
social problem . . . Unrequited love, with its danger of loneliness and
pain, will liardly play a role in a society which sets collective tasks and
offers collective joys, a society in which individual sorrows are no
longer important . . .

This manner of treating difficult problems of mass psvcliology
is misleading and dangerous: “Change tl:c economic basis of
society and its institutions, and llic Imman relationsh^'ps will
cliange of themselves/’ Alter the success of the fascist m()\^emcnt,
the fact can no longer be doubted tlnit tbese rclatior.sliips, in the
form of people’s psychic* and sexual structure, become a power
in themselves whicli in turn has a far-reachi])e; influence on
society. Not to see this means eliminating li\i]ig man from
history.

In biief, tilings were being oversimplified. Ideological changes
were tliought of as all too immediately and directly connected
with their economic basis. What, then, are the “retroactive
effects of tlie ideology on the economic basis” that are so much
talked about and so little understood?

The woman with a strict marital and familial attitude becomes
jealous when the husband begins to enter political life. She is
afraid that he will get entangled with other women. The patri-
archal husband will have the same reaction when his wife begins
to show political interests. Parents, proletarians included, do not
like to see their adolescent daughters go to meetings. They fear
that the girls will “go wrong,” that is, start a sexual life. Though
the childreji ought to go to the collective, the parents still make
their old possessive demands on them. They are horrified when
the child begins to look at them with a critical eye. These ex-
amples could be multiplied indefinitely.

Many attempts to deal with these problems ended in empty
slogans of “culture and human personality.” Theoretically, people
knew that tlie antithesis of culture and nature should be abol-

THE BACKGROUND OF THE INHIBITION

183

ishecl. When it came to practical attempts at a solution, how-
ever, old antisexual and moralistic concepts would creep in again.
Thus, Batkis, director of the Moscow Institute of Social Hygiene,
wrote in his booklet. The Sexual Revolution in the Soviet
Union:

During the revolution, the element of eroticism, of sexualisin, played
only a minor role, because youth was riding along on the wave of
revolutionary feeling and was living only for the great ideas. But when
the quieter times of reconstruction came, it was fearc'd that youth, as
in 1905, would now, cooled off and sober, start to engage in unre-
stricted eroticism.

On the basis of the experiences in the S.U., 1 say that the woman,
in experiencing social liberation and becoming acquainted with public
social tasks, that is, in her transition from a mere woman to a human
being, went sexuallij cold lo aenne extent. Her sexuality is, though
perhaps only tcmpcj arily, repressed . . . The task of sexual pedagogy
in the S.U. is to bring up healthy individuals, members of a futures
society in whom there is cojnplete harmony between their natural
drive:; and their great social tasks. To this end, everything that is cre-
ative and constructive in the natural drives must be furthered, and
everything that could b(‘comc harmful to th(‘ development of the
personality of the jnember of the collective should be eliminated
. . . Free love in the S.U. is not an unbridled, wild living out, but the
ideal relationship of two free independent p:'opIe who love each other.

Thus even Batkis, an otherwise clear thinker, after making a
correct start, got bogged down in slogans. The sexuality of youtli
is called ‘ sexualism,’’ the sexual problem an “element of erotics."'
One finds, without questioning it, that the woman went sexually
cold to some extent, that she clianged from a “mere woman”
to a “human being.” Everything has to be eliminated which
could become harmful to the development of the personality
( what is meant, of course, is sexuality ) ; the unbridled, wild “liv-
ing out” is contrasted to the “ideal” relationsliip of two “free,
independent people who love each other.” The masses were
entangled in tliese concepts like fish in a net. If one looks at
these concepts somewhat more closely, their complete empti-

184 THE INHIBrnON OF THE SEXUAL BEVOLUTION

ness and their antisexual, i.e., reactionary, character becomes
obvious. What is “wild livmg out”? Does that mean that a man
and a woman should not be living out in the sexual embrace?
And what is the “ideal” relationship? Tliut relationship in which
people are capable of full “animal” surrender? But then they are
“wild”! In brief, nothing but words which, instead of compre-
hending the realities of sexual life and its conflicts, only obscure
the truth in order to avoid the contact with these painful subjects.

What is the basis of this confused thinking? Tlie failure to dis-
tinguish the pathological sexuality of youth, a sexuality which
was at variance with cultural achievement, from healthy sexuality
which is the physiological basis of cultural achievement; tlie an-
tithesis of “mere woman” (that is, sensual wornaTi), and “human
being” (that is, active, sublimating, woman), instead of realizing
that the sexual awareness and self-confidence on the part of the
woman is the p.sychie basis of her social etnancii>atiou and ac-
tivitv; the antithesis of “living out” and “idtxxl relatioji.ship,”
instead of realizing that the capacity for full sexual surrender to
the beloved partner is the safest basis for a companionshij).

2 . MOKALIZING INSTEAD OF COMPHEIIENSION AND
PIIACTICAL M.iSTEltY

One of tlie essential eharaeteristics of the inhibition of the
sexual revolution was tliat the ehaotie conditions brought about
by the sexual revolution were judged moralistieally instead of
being viewed as the manifestation of a revolutionary transition
period. There were eries of desperation to the effeet that ehaos
had broken out, that diseipline had to be reintroduced, that
“inner discipline had to take the place of external compulsion.”
This was oiJy the old thing in a new disguise, because “inner
discipline” cannot be demanded or enforced; it is either there or
it is not. In demanding “inner discipline” instead of external
compulsion, one was again exerting an external pressmre. One
should have asked. How can things be changed in such a way
that people have a voluntary discipline, without its being forced
upon them? The “equality of the woman” was a revolutionary

MORALIZING INSTEAD OF PRACTICAL MASTERY 185

principle. Economically, the principle of equal wages for equal
work had reallv been established. Sexually? there was at first no
objection if the woman made the same sexual demands as the
man. But that was not the important thing. The question was.
Were women struc'turally capable of making use of their free-
dom? Were the men? Had they not all previously acquhed a
structure which was antisexual, moralistic, inhibited, lascivious,
jealous, possessive and generally neurotic? What was necessary
first of all was to comprehend the chaos, to distinguish clearly
the revolutionary forces from the reactionary, inhibiting forces,
and to realize that a better form of living cannot be born without
birth pangs.

Soon, the inhibition of the sexual revolution began to crystal-
lize around certain centers. The high Soviet authorities at first
assumed a passive attitude. The common formula was, '‘The
economic problems come first; the sexual problems we shall
tackle later on.” The press was almost exclusively at the disposal
of economic interests. I do not know whether there were any
journals devoted specifically to the problems of the sexual
revolution.

Of decisive importance w^as the influence of tlie intellectuals.
Their origin, structure and thinking made them opposed to the
sexual revolution. They idealized the old revolutionaries who, as
a result of their difficult tasks, wtu'c not able to lead a satisfactory
sex life; they applied this enforced way of Ii\ing from the revo-
lutionary leader to the masses and made an ideal of it. This was,
of course, harmful. One camiot expect of the masses w^hat the
tasks demand of the leaders. In addition, why should one?
Fanina Halle, instead of making clear the disastrous influence of
such an ideology on the masses, praises it in her book. Woman
IN Soviet Russia. She writes about the old revolutionaries:

They were all young, many very beautiful and artistically talented
(Vera Figner, Ludmila Wolkenstein), thoroughly feminine and as if
made for personal happiness. Nevertheless, the personal, tlie erotic
and feminine always remained in the background. The traits of chas-

186 THE INHIBITION OF THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION

lity and purity iu the relationships of the sexc's which were thus culti-
vated and which have iiiHuenced that whole generation of Russian
intc'lU'ctuals and tlic following geiuTation, still predominates in the
relationship between man and woman in tlie Soviet Union and con-
tinues to astonish foreigners who have such a different attitude . . .

This complete emancipation from everything Philistine, this com-
plete denial of social barriers, have furthered the development of
pure, strictly companionate relationships based on common intellectual
interests . . .

. . . With all the more enthusiasm did some of the imprisoned revo-
lutionaries apply themselves to mathematics, and some of these fanatics
were made so (?xcitc‘d by this that they went on with these problems
even in their dreams.

Again, from these statements it is not clear whether in a so-
called ‘pure” relationship the genital act is permitted or not,
whether it includes or excludes full vegetative surrender. It is
nonsense to postulate an ideal for the masses according to which
mathematics become an exciting sensation and take the place of
the most natural of human needs. Such an ideology is not honest
and not in keeping with the facts. The rexolution should not
defend dishonest ideals, but the real life of love and work.

In 1929 I heard in Moscow that youth was being given sexual
enlightenment. It was immediately evident that this enlighten-
ment was antiscxual. Essentially, it was nothing but information
about venereal diseases and about conception, in order to scare
the youngsters aw^ay from sexual intercourse. Of an honest dis-
cussion of the sexual conflicts there was not a trace.

When I asked at the Commissariat for Public Health how mas-
turbation in adolescents was being treated, I was told, by “diver-
sion, of course.” The medical point of view— which in Austrian
and German sex hygiene clinics had become a matter of course—
that one should free a youngster of his guilt feelings and thus
make satisfactory masturbation possible for him, was rejected as
horrible.

Wlien I asked the directress of the Office for Maternal Health,
Lebedeva, whether the adolescents were being instructed in the

MORALIZING INSTEAD OF PRACTICAL MASTERY 187

necessity and the use of contraceptives, slie told me that such a
measure would be incompatible with ComniTinist discipline. In
talking with a youlh group in a glass factory near Moscow I found
that the youngsters were inclined to laugh about such attitudes
on the part of the authorities; on the other hand, they did not
know how to get togetlier with their girls and liad sexcre guilt
feelings about masturbation; in brief, they showed tl'.e typical
conflicts of puberty.

The sexual reaction made a particularly harmful use of some
poorly understood statements of Lenin’s. Lenin was extremely
reticent in expressing definite views on sexual problems. His
correct grasp of the task of the revolution in this respect was
expressed in his statement, “Communism should not bring
asceticism, but enjoyment of life and vigor in life through a ful-
filled love life.” But what really became known, tlianks to the
sex-reactionary attitude of the responsible circles, was tliat pas-
sage from Lenin’s Talk widi Klara Zetkiii in which he discussed
the “chaotic” sexual life of youth:

The changcxl attitude of youth toward the questions of sex life is, of
course', “fundamentar’ and depends on a theory. Manv call tlieir atti-
tude “revolutionaiy’' or “Communist,"' and beheve sincerely tliat that
is so. 1, the oldster, am not impressed by that. Though I am not an
ascetic, it seems to me that this so-called “new sexual life’" of youth,
and often also of older people, is often enough nothing but an expros-
sioTi of the good old bourgeois brothel. All that has noticing in coinmon
with the freedom of love as we Communists understand it. 1 am sure
you know the famous thcoiy according to which the gratification of
the instinctual love life in the Communist society is as simple and
incidental as the drinking of a glass of water. This “glass-of-vvater-
thediy’^"" has made part of our youth completely crazy. It has been
disastrous to many boys and girls. Its advocates contend that it is
Marxistic. No thank you, for such a ^iarxisin whicli makes all phe-
nomena and all changes in the ideological superstnictiire of society
derive directly and immediately from its economic basis. Things are
not as simple as all that . . .

To try to reduce these id(.'oIogical changes, divorced from their

188 THE INHIBITION OF THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION

context with the total ideology, to the economic basis of society would
be rationalism, and not Marxism. Surely, thirst demands to be
quenched. Btit will a normal individual, under normal circumstances,
lie down in the gutter and drink from a puddle? Or even from a dirty
glass? What is more important than everything else is the social side.
Drinking water is an individual act. Love requires two people and may
result in a third life. This fact contains a social interest, a duty toward
society.

Let us try to understand what Lenin meant here. First of all,
he refuted economisin, that concept which derives everything
cultural directly from the economic basi.s. He recognized the fact
that the refusal of tender relationships in tlie sexual life of youth
was nothing but the old conservative view in reverse; and the
further fact that the glass-of- water-theory was nothing but the
exact reverse of the old conservative idcologv of asceticism.
Lenin .also recognized that this sexual life was not the desired,
sex-economically regulated one, for it was antisocial and unsatis-
factory.

What, then, was lacking in Lenin’s formulation? First of all,
a positive concept of what should take the place of the old in
the sexual life of youth. There are only three possibilities: absti-
nence, masturbation, and satisfactory licterosexual rel.ationships.
Thus Communism should have clearly designated one of them
as the desirable goal. Lenin did not take a programmatic attitude;
he only repudiated the loveless sexual acts and pointed in the
direction of a “happy sex life,” and that excludes abstinence as
well as masturbation. Certainly Lenin did not advocate absti-
nence! And yet, as pointed out before, it was exactly this passage
of his about the glass-of-water-theory which again and again was
used by the timid souls and the moralists in defense of their
disastrous concepts in the fight against adolescent sexuality.

They had nothing positive to contribute. Instead of trying to
understand the enormous struggle of youtli and trying to help
them, they poked fun at them. Thus the well-known Communist
Smidovitch, a woman, wrote in Pravda:

MORALIZING INSTEAD OF PRACTICAL MASTERY 189

1. Any Komsomolets, member of the Communist Youth, any rab-
fakowets, student of the workers faculty and any other greenhorn is
allowed to satisfy his sexual needs. For unknown reasons, this seems
to be an unwritten law. Se'xual abstiiK'iice is considered “petit-
bourgeois.” 2. Any Koinsomolka, any rabfakowka or otlier female stu-
dent has to do the bidding of any man to whom she seems pleasing,
otherwise she is “petit-bourgeois” and does not deserve the name of
a proletarian student. How such African passions may have developed
here in our North is more than I can understand. And 3., there is the
third act of this peculiar trilogy: the pale, drawn face of a pregnant
girl. In the waiting room of the “Commission for the authorization of
abortion” you can see any number of the results of such Komsomolets
romances.

Such attitudes betray the pride of the “Nordic/' the sexually
“pure” individual, the Smidovitch, comparing herself with the
“primitive.” It did not occur to this Nordic individual t1iat the
pregnancies and abortions could be avoided by instructing youth
in the use of contraceptives and by providing hygienic condi-
tions for a sexual life. All this in the interest of “Soviet culture.”
But it was to no avail: these statements made by Smidovitch
were displayed on German billboards as a description of “Com-
munist sexual ideology!”

And as always when one does not dare to face t]ic reality of
adolescent sexuality, the slogan, after a period of Imavy conflict
with youth came to be, in the S.U. also: Ahsiinence. A slogan
which is as convenient as it is catastrophic and incapable of
realization. Fanina Ilalle reported:

The older generation which was called into consultation, scientists,
sex hygienists, party officials, advocated the same attitude as Lenin,
an attitude which Semashko, the Commissar for Public Health, sum-
marized as follows in a letter to the student youth:

“Comrades, you have come to the universities and technical insti-
tutes for your studies. That is the main goal of your life. And as all
your impulses and attitudes are subordinated to this main goal, as
you must deny yourself many enjoyments because they might inter-
fere with your main goal, that of studying and of becoming collabora-

190 rUK INHIBITION OF THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION

tors in the reconstruction of the state, so you must subordinate all
other aspects of your existence to this goal. The state is as yet too poor
to take over the supTiort of you and the education of the children.
Therefore, our advice to you is: Ahstincnccr

And what alwa\^s results from sexual abstinence developed in
the S.U. also: sexual delinquency. This misleading reference to
Lenin must be protested against. Lenin never advocated absti-
nence on the part of youth. Certainly, when Lenin spoke of
‘Vigor and enjoyment in life through a gratifying sex life,’" he
did not mean the asceticism of impotent scientists and shriveled-
up sex hygienists.

The then responsible authorities in the S.U. cannot be blamed
for not knowing tlie solution to these difficulties. But they must
be blamed for avoiding the difficulties, for taking the line of least
resistance, for not asking themselves what it all meant, for talk-
ing about the revolution of life without looking for it in real
life; for misinterpreting the existing chaos as a “moral chaos”
in the sense of the political reaction instead of comprehending it
as chaotic conditions which were inherent in llie transition to
new sexual forms; and last but not least for repudiating the con-
tributions to an understanding of the prol)lem which the German
sex-political movement had to offer.

What, then, were these difficulties which finally became so
great that they resulted in the inhibition of tlie sexual revolution?

First of all, a sexual rc\^olntion takes place in different forms
than an economic re\olution: not in forms which can be put
into plans and laws, but in all the details of everyday personal
life, complicated by all kinds of complex and subterranean emo-
tional elements. The complexity and multitude of these details
alone make it impossible to master the sexual chaos by handling
these details. From this, the conclusion is drawn, “Private life
hinders the class struggle; consequently, there should be no pri-
vate life.” Of course one cannot try to master the chaos by trying
to master each single case individually. These problems have to
be solved on a mass basis. But among the individual difficulties

OBJECTIVE CAUSES OF THE INHIBITION 191

there are many tliat apply to millions. One of these, for example,
is the problem under which every halfway healtliy adolescent
suffers most acutely: the problem of how to be alone with his
girl. There is no doubt that the solution of this problem alone,
that is, providing the possibility for undisturbed being together
sexually, would immediately eliminate a great deal of the chaos.
For if in one city borough alone there are thousands of youngsters
who do not know where to go to embrace their girls, they will do
it in dark alleys and will disturb each other, get into scraps, will
feel unsatisfied, cranky and will be driven to excesses; in brief,
they create “chaos.” As obvious as this is, there is literally no
organization, political or otherwise, which ever would come out
for the necessity of providing youth with quaHcrs for their being
together sexually undisturbed.

3. OBJECmVE CAUSES OF THE INHIBITION

The difficulties thus far described derived from the ignorance
and die prejudices of the responsible functionaries. But the im-
petus of the revolution was so great that this inhibition on the
part of individual functionaries and reactionary professors could
not have made itself felt decisively if there had not been diffi-
culties in die objective process itself which worked in the same
direction. It would be wrong to say, therefore, that the sexual,
and with that the cultural revolution, failed as a result of the
ignorance and sexual anxiety of the leading circles. The inhibi-
tion of a revolutionary movement of the magnitude of the Soviet
sexual revolution can come about only as tlie result of decisive
objective hindrances. They can be roughly summarized in the
following groups:

1. The laborious task of reconstruction in general, particu-
larly in view of the cultural backwardness of the old Russia, of
civil war and famine.

2. The lack of a theory of sexual revolution. The fact has to be
remembered that the Soviet sexual revolution was the first revo-
lution of its kind.

3. The sex-negative structure of people in general, that is, the

194 THE INHIBITION OF THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION

that one night. It is one thing if a man, iiresponsibly, leaves his
wife and children for the sake of some superficial sexual relation-
ship; it is an altogether different thing if a man, because he is
sexually Jiealthy, makes an intolerable marriage more tolerable
by maintaining a secret happy relationship with another woman.
These examples may suffice to illustrate the following points;

1. What appears as chaos to the people who are warped by
the authoritarian sexual order is not necessarily chaos; on the
contrary, it may be the rebellion of the organism against impos-
sible life conditions.

2. Much of what is really chaos is not a result of any immo-
rality on the part of youth, but the result of an unsolvable con-
flict between natural sexual needs and an ejivironment which in
every possible way impedes their gratification.

3. The transition from an internally chaotic, externally seem-
ingly orderly way of living to an internally orderly way of living,
though this may appear chaotic to the Babbitts, can take place
only through a phase of heavy confusion.

It must be remembered that the human beings of our times
have a tremendous fear of just that kind of life for which they
long so much but which is at variance with their own structure.
True, the sexual resignation which characterizes the overwhelm-
ing majority of people means indolence, emptiness in life, paraly-
sis of all healthy activity and initiative, or brutal, sadistic
excesses; but at the same time it provides a relative calm in life.
It is as if death were already anticipated in the way of living;
people live toward death. They prefer this living death if their
structure is incapable of dealing with the uncertainties and diffi-
culties of a life that is really alive. One only has to remember,
for example, people’s fear of not finding a suitable sexual partner
after having lost their partner, no matter how painful the living
together may have been. Or the thousands of murders of sexual
partners which occur because the idea that the partner may em-
brace somebody else sexually is intolerable. Such facts play a
much more decisive role in real life than, say, the political voy-
ages of a Laval. For governments can do with populations what

OBJECTIVE CAUSES OF THE INHIBrnON 195

they please only as long us people keep struggling, constantly,
unconsciously and hopelessly, with these most personal problems
which touch tlie core of their lives. Suppose one would find, in
a city district of 100,000 people, all the women wlio are in diffi-
culties because of the upbringing of tlieir children, the infidelity
of their husbands, and their own incapacity for sexual gratifica-
tion, and one would ask tliem what tliey think of the diplomatic
errands of a Laval. Their ansv^'ers would show lliat millions of
women, men and adolescents are so preoccupied with these prob-
lems of their personal lives that they are not even aware of what
the politicians arc doing with them.

ClIAPTEU XI

LIBERATION OF BIRTH CONTROL AND
HOMOSEXUALITY, AND SUBSE-
QUENT INHIBITION

III the field of birth control, there was a remarkable clarity of
concepts from the very beginning. The basic concepts were as
follows :

As long as a society is not willing or al:)le to take care of the
children, it has no right to demand of the motliers that they
bear children against their will or in spite of serious economic
want. For this reason, all women, without exception, had the
right to interrupt a pregnancy during the first three months. The
alDortions were to take place in public obstetric hospitals. Only
clandestine illicit abortions were to be punished. By this measure
it was hoped that illegal abortion would come out into the open
and would be taken out of the hands of tlic quacks. In the cities,
tl\is was largely successful; out in the country, women were less
apt to gi\^e up their old ways. This showed again that abortion
is not just a legal problem but has a great deal to do with the
sexual anxiety of women. The secrecy and the embarrassment
with which sexuality has been connected for thousands of years
cause a woman from among the workers or peasants to go to a
quack rather than to a hospital.

There was never any thought of making abortion a lasting
social institution; the Soviets were clear in their own minds from
the very beginning that the legalization of abortion was only one
of the means of fighting quackery. The maiTi goal was that of the
prevention of abortion tlnough thorough enlightenment about
the use of contraceptives.

The stigma of the unwed mother soon disappeared. The in-

196

197

LIBERATION AND SUBSEQUENT DSnUBITION

creasing participation of the woman in the process of production
gave her a material independence and security which not only
facilitated child-bearing to her, but made it seem more desirable.
The women ceased working for two months previous to delivery
and two months afterwards, while their pay continued. The fac-
tories and the farm collectives established nurseries with trained
nurses who could take care of the children while the mothers
were at work. If one saw these institutions for child care, one
could no longer doubt the enormous progress in social hygiene.
The women were relieved of heavy work in the early months of
pregnancy. The time they took off for nursing was paid. The
budget for maternal and infant care rose from year to year, almost
in geometrical progression. Thus it is not surprising that the
drop in birlli rate, so much feared by the timid souls and the
moralists, did not materialize; on the contrary, there was a con-
siderable increase in the birth rate.

The government made every effort to penetrate even into the
remotest districts of the enormous country; for example, special
trains equipped with everything necessary for the institution of
birth control went to tlie outlying provinces. The fact that it
took about 10-12 years of hard work to reduce illegal abortion
to a minimum shows the power of the sexual anxiety in tire
masses; it makes the acceptance of useful measures a slow and
difficult process.

As always, the attempt to put into practice scx-hvgienic meas-
ures ran into the reactionary attitude of tlic conventional social
hygienists. As always, it was shown that the masses have a direct
and instinctual grasp of these vital questions, while the “trained”
social hygienist, with all his tu’guments “pro and con” behaves
like the centipede who, when told that he had a hundred feet,
found himself no longer able to walk. Let us sec at what point of
the abortion problem and by what means the reaction was able
to get a footliold and finally to exert its inhibiting influence.

We can forego a historical and statistical presentation of the
abortion problem; that has been given in many good books. We
shall only try to comprehend the dynamics of the conflict be-

198

LIBERATION AND SUBSEQUENT INHIBITION

tween tlie forward-driving and the inhibiting elements. The
ethical, more or less disguised religious argument not only per-
sisted, but gradually gained more and more weight. As always,
reactionary ethics can be recognized by their empty wordiness.
From the very beginning, the sexual reaction fought the revolu-
tionizing of the abortion problem partly with old arguments
taken over from Tsarism, partly with new ones adapted to
Sovietism, but no less reactionary arguments. It was said that
“liumanity would die out,” ‘morality would collapse,” tliat “the
family had to be protected” and “tlie will to have children had to
be supported.” The main worry of the sexual reaction, as every-
where else, was the concern about a possible decline of the birth
rate.^

Among these arguments one cannot distinguish those which
are honest and those which, both subjectively and objectively,
are notliing but empty excuses for not having to co^ne to grips
with the real problems of sexual life. The concern about the
maintenance of morality, that is the non-fulfillment of sexual
needs, is genuine in tliese people; so is their concern for tlie
family.

On the otlier hand, the talk about depopulation and about the
protection of unborn life is an excuse. Tliese people forget that
in nature everything multiplies infinitely, perhaps just because
there are no population politicians. There can no longer be any

1 Translator's note: This refers lo the time of the Russian revoUiiion. Sinc:c tlien,
this irrational argument of the reaction has not changed in the least. I'hus, General
Henri Honors Giraud writes about the collapse of France (Life, Fc]>ruary 1, 1943):
“What are the causes of this unforeseeable crash, unheard of in the history of
France? First, the primordial question, that of birth rate. France, even without the
war, was on the slope of suicide. The family was disappearing to give place to
couples without children. In the world’s richest country wliere the soil gives to
anybody who wants to work it, the countryside was depopulating itself.”

This antisexual argument leads in a straight line to fascism: . . . “What did the
school teach these youngsters and these men? First, egoism, personal interest and
the cult of envy. After that, negation of everything spiritual, of everything divine,
of everything ideal. Atheism, if not proclaimed, was at least encouraged ... If
from youth, which formed only a small part of the Army, we pass to the entire
nation, what were its characteristics? . . . Admittedly, the Germans do not perhaps
(I) have liberty, but there is certainly neither disorder nor anarchy. Everywhere
it is work, the only fortune for a people which wishes to live and live happily.
May France remember it and profit by it.” [Italics are mine.~T.P.W.]

LIBERATION AND SUBSEQUENT INHIBITION 199

doubt: Population politics as practiced today, as dishonest and
vague as it is, is a memis of sexual negation, a means of diverting
attention from the problems of establishing opportimities for
sexual gratification.

Obviously fascist tendencies were expressed in the attitudes
of the very people whose first duty it would have been to pay less
attention to the “State” and nioie to maternal health. Thus, for
example. Dr. Koroliov, at the Congress in Kiev in 1932, sum-
marized his views as follows:

Criminal abortion is a sign of immoraliUj which finds support in the
legalization of abortion.

Social abortion is often enough the wrong wa)' out of the chaos of
the sexual problem ... It prevents motherhood and often decreases
woman’s success in public hie. Therefore, it is alien to genuine com-
munal living.

Abortion is a mass mcam of dcstroijlng progenij. Its intention is not
that of helping the mother or society; it has nothing to do with the
protection of maternal health.

In contrast to tliese coiners of phrases with their fascist men-
tality, there were sexologists and physicians who, without much
theoretical knowledge, but siinpl)^ from the correct instinct which
they had acquired in practice, had the correct revolutionary con-
cept. Thus, for example, Klara Bender who, at the Congress of
the German Group of the International Criminological Associa-
tion in 1932, courageously opposed the hypocrites who made the
arguments of the reactionary population politicians in the S.U.
their own.

This talk about the physical and emotional damage was non-
sense, she said, if abortion was carried out under proper con-
ditions. The argument about the decline of the birth rate, she
said, was contradicted by statistics. The talk about woman’s
primordial instinct for the “child” was shown to be nonsense by
the brutality with which women in reactionary countries were
forced to bring up children imder impossible conditions. In the
conservative countries, she said, abortion was purely a matter of

200 LIBERATION AND SUBSEQUENT INHIBITION

finances, and the conservative abortion laws were driving women
to the abortion quacks. On the other hand, in the Moscow Hos-
pital for birth control, there had not been one death among the
50,000 abortions in one year.

One is again and again amazed by the ineffectiveness of such
clear arguments. Witnessing the discussions about birth control
and abortion in Germany, one could not help realizing that the
reactionary population politicians and liygienists were not by
any means operating with rational arguments. They always re-
minded one of the Nazis’ discussions about the race theory. In
tliat connection it had become unequivocally clear that one
cannot deal with empty orators, impotent and vain professors
by laboriously trying to demonstrate that the Germanic Nordic
race is not the most superior one in tlie world or that a Negro
baby is no less intelligent or charming than the offspring of a
German Burger.

If it were a matter of rational argumentation, then the revo-
lutionary arguments would have long since done away with the
ideology of tlie reactionary population politicians and the race
theorists. But these gioups had on their side irrational forces
in mass thinking which cannot be handled by rational arguments
alone. The reactionary population politicians are successful be-
cause women have an unconscious fear of genital injury. For this
reason, millions of German women voted, against their own in-
terest, against the abolition of the abortion paragraph. The same
thing was shown in Denmark in 1934, when signatures were col-
lected for a petition to abolish the abortion paragraph. The race
theorists, on their part, can exist only because the German
Burger can compensate for his inferiority feeling when he is told
that he belongs to the “leading,” “most intelligent,” “most cre-
ative” race, that is, the Nordic race.

The fact has to be stressed that such irrational formations as
the race theory and modern eugenics cannot be beaten by ra-
tional arguments alone; the rational arguments have to be sup-
ported by a foundation of strong natural feelings. It is not a
matter of “putting into effect” an armchair tfieory of sex-economy;

IJBERATION AND SUBSEQUENT INHIBITION

201

social living itself spontaneously discloses the facts which are
described in sex-economic theoiy, once the sources of human life
are allowed to flow again. It is not a matter of procreation, but,
first of all, of safeguarding sexual happiness. The fact that the
problem of birth control was discussed in the S.U. not in private
associations or circles, but socially and oflScially, in a positive
way, was in itself a tremendous step ahead. Only thus was it
possible for a courageous and intelligent revolutionary like Ze-
linsky to say the following to the conservative autliorities:

In the framework of the talks about the hannfulness of abortion at
this Congress my statements will sound heretical. It is difficult to
believe in the social honesty of those speakers who, tuming their faces
away from life and from facts, tell us abstract truths about abortion.
There is an atmosphere here of social myopia or social hypocrisy.
These people do not see, or do not want to see, those socio-economic
and mass-psychological conditions under which the epidemic of abor-
tion takes place. Their statcanents about abortion betray moralistic
prejudice rather than objective (valuation. In connection with this
problem, all kinds of horror stories have been spread. One has tried
to scare us with everything imaginable: infection and perforation of
the uterus, neiwous disease, decline of tlie birth rate, extinc'tion of the
maternal instinct, operation in dark places, around corners, etc. Is not
the introduction of a tube into the stomach, or even the duodenum,
also operating in the dark? If all kinds of things are injected into
veins, do you know (waetly beforehand what the result will be? Is
the connection betwc'en endocrine disturbances and abortion in anv
way proved? Why is it, then, that the city women who go through one
abortion after the other, can still, at 30, successfully compete with
their friends of 20 in physical beauty, while their country sisters, who
conscientiously bear children, turn into walking corpses at 30, after
having had 6 or 8 children? And who says that fewer births will always
be harmful to beauty? The opposite may well be true. It is easier for
the woman to stand abortions than to follow one little coffin after the
other to the cemetery and to bury with them her youth and strength.
Of course, there might be more children, but then there should be
different social conditions. Look at life frankly, see in what socio-
economic conditions women live and are compelled to have their

202 LIBERATION AND SUBSEQUENT INHIBITION

children. The family, with its short duration, does not guarantee to the
women the conditions which are indispensable for a propm* upbring-
ing of their cln'ldren. Alimony does not always serve the purpose. The
man who is incapable of paying liis alimony is of more theoretical
interest to the lawyer than of practical interest to the woman. Con-
traceptives are often unreliable. The right of the woman to abortion
cannot always be made iisc' of, because many of the women are
unemployed, while they can make use of this right if they have a
monthly income of 40 to 50 rubles. You remember a passage in Zola
where a clandestine abortionist says to the licensed physician: “You
people push the women into prison or into the Seine, and we pull
them out.” Do you want that the “pulling out of the Seine” should
again become tlie job of the criminal abortionists? One of the speakers
here exclaimed in horror: “All that is needed is the certificate of the
doctor and the desire of the woman, and there you have abortion.”
Yes, that is exactly the way it should be: the desire of the woman is
sufficient, because the right to detennine the social indications for
abortion is the woman’s and nobody else’s. None among us men would
tolejate it if some commission or other had the say about our mar-
riage, if they, according to their social concepts, could consent to our
getting married or veto it. So, don’t keep the woman from deciding
the cardinal question of her life for herself. The woman has a right to
a sexual life and wants to realize it just as the man does, and if she
is to be a full social and biological being, she must have the full
possibilities of realizing it. There should not be a mass production of
a class of spinsters who can only be detrimental to a program of
collective living.

Zelinsky, with a correct instinct, made his stand just at the
time when the sexual reaction started to hamper birth control
and abortion again with commissions, decrees and humanitarian
rationalizations. At this congress, then, there was a very serious
struggle between the sex-affirmative and the sex-negating groups.
Ten years after the legalization of abortion, the sexual reaction
was still strong. Yefimov demanded a thorough study of contra-
ceptives. At the same time, he complained that they were being
publicly sold in the streets of Moscow without any medical con-
trol, which: opened the door for speculation and fraud. Benders-

LIBERATION AND SUBSEQUENT INHIBITION 203

kaya aud Shinka demanded free distribution of contraceptives;
Belinksy, Shinka and Zelitsky demanded that they be distributed
only on medical prescription, saying that uncontrolled distribu-
tion of contraceptives might be infinitely harmful from a popula-
tion standpoint.

The question as to the best mode of distributing contraceptives
remained unsolved. Tlie “eugenic’^ concern was in reality the
concern about the “moral” behavior of the population. The en-
joyment of sexual pleasure seemed to be incompatible witli the
wish for children. Dr. Benderskaya, Kiev, e.g., advocated the
following principles:

1. Making abortion again punishable would increase the criminal
abortions performed by quacks.

2. Criminal abortion by quacks must be fouglit bv legal abortion.

3. Legal abortion must be fought by birth control information.

4. In a Socialist social order, the woman will fulfill her function of
rnothenhood according to the demands of die collective of which she
is a member.

Point 4 immediately nullifies the first three. Points 1-3 pertain
to sex-hygienic measures which would grant sexual freedom and
enjoyment; tlien., in point 4, motherhood is subordinated to a
moral demand, the “demands of the collective.” What was over-
looked was the role of the pleasure in the child. It will never be
possible to force women to bear children for the sake of a power
outside of them. Bearing children will either be part of the
general enjoyment of life and will then rest on a firm foundation,
or it will be a moral demand and remain, to the same extent, an
unsolvable problem.

Why are the eugenic interests always at variance with the
sexual interests of the people? Is this conflict unsolvable? As
long as nations are hostile to each other; as long as they are
separated by national and tariff boundaries; as long as there is
an interest in competing with other nations in the numbers of
available soldiers, eugenics must needs he at variance with the
demands of sexual hygiene. Since one cannot openly state that

204 LIBtoATION AND SUBSEQUENT INHIBITION

one needs an increase in population, one talks about 'morality
and procreatioir and the ‘preservation of the race.” In reality,
womens unwillingness to have children is only one of the ex-
pressions of the crisis in human sex life. It is no pleasure to have
children under poor living conditions and with unloved part-
ners; more tlian that, the sexual life itsell has become a torture.
The eugenicists do not see tins conflict; they are the executives of
nationalistic interests. In spite of its basic socialism, the S.U. was
unable, just because of this conflict, to develop a socialist popula-
tion policy; it was constantly under the pressure of a threatening
intervention. Not until the social causes of war are eliminated and
society can turn to the task of building up the conditions for
happy living, will tlie conflict between sexual happiness and
population interests disappear; then only will the enjoyment in
having children be part of the general enjoyment of sexuality.
With that, the moral demand for procreation will become
unnecessary.

The legalization of abortion contained—although only implicitly
—the affirmation of sexual pleasure. This would have required a
conscious changing of the whole sexual ideology from negative
to positive, from sex-negation to sex-affirmation. According to
tlie obstetricians at the before-mentioned Congress, 60-70% of
the women were ineapable of experiencing sexual pleasure. It
was said tliat this lack of sexual potency was due, of all things, to
abortion. This statement is contradicted by clinical experience;
it is an attempt to obscure the problem of abortion and to justify
its prohibition. This percentage of women is sexually disturbed
with or without abortion, quite generally and everyw^here. It
happened that some women went througli 15 abortions, many 2
or 3 times a year. This shows that the women are afraid of using
contracepfives. Otherwise, they would of themselves see to the
use of proper contraceptives. We know from our experience in
the sex liygienc clinics in Germany that almost all women have
this fear; we know that at the same time the problem of contra-
ception is one of tlieir most burning problems. The women must
be freed from this fear. It is necessary to voice this burning, un-

LIBERATION AND SUBSEQUENT INHIBITION 205

acknowledged desire of theirs and to see to its fulfillment. The
legalization of abortion alone does not create the positive desire
for children. This presupposes, first of all, the establishment of the
internal, that is, social, prerequisite for a happy love life. Instead
of debating the mode of distribution of contraceptives, one
should find out exactly which contraceptives are most likely to
piinrantee sexual gratification. What good is a pessary if the
woman is afraid of it or has the uncomfortable sensation of a
foreign body in her and thus cannot reach gratification? What
good is a condom if it reduces gratification and thus creates
neurasthenic complaints? What good is the best propaganda for
contraception if there are insufficient facilities for manufacturing
the best of contraceptives to supply everybody, at a price that
everybody can afFord? And what good do these facilities do if
at the same time the women retain their fear of using contra-
ceptives?

The resolution of this Congress still advocated legalized abor-
tion; but at the same time it showed a general fear of really
advocating sexual gratification. This atmosphere of fear was
described in 1932 by Fanina Halle as follows:

The outside world has heard little about the protests of the older
Bolsheviks, many of whom, it is true, went far beyond Lenin and
almost preached ascetic ideals. Instead, there was all the more talk
of the “socialization of the woman,” particularly in connection with
antisovietistic propaganda. In the meantime, the tide of interest in
sexual problems has definitely receded, and the niatnring Russian
youth, the avant-garde of the revolution, find themselv(\s confronted
with such serious responsible tasks that the sexual problems become
unimportant. In this manner, the relationships between the sexes in
the S.U. have again reached a stage of descxualization, this time per-
haps more thoroughgoing than ever before. The casualncss of the
relationships between man and woman which at first was characteristic
of a small circle of revolutionary pioneers, has now become char-
acteristic of the masses of people. The force which brought this about
is the five-year-plan.

The Soviet ideology is proud of this “desexualization.” But this

206 LIBERATION AND SUBSEQUENT INHIBITION

‘‘desexualizatioii’’ is a figment of phantasy. Sexuality does not
disappear; it continues in pathological, distorted and harmful
forms. The alternative of sexuality and sociality does not exist.
The only alternatixe is: socially affirmed, satisfactory, happy sex
life, or pathological, secretive, socially outlawed sex life. To the
very extent to which the seeming desexualization— which is in
reality the disturbance of natural sexuality— will make people in
the S.U. sick and antisocial, to the same extent will the authori-
ties see themselves forced to tighten moralistic laws, for example,
to abolish legalized abortion. In an inexorable vicious circle, sup-
pressed sexuality will call for moral pressure, and this in turn
will increase the disturbance of sexuality. Professor Stroganov
already complaiimd that while previously the women were
asliamed of abortion, they now “considered it their legal riglit.”
The directress of the organization for maternal health, Lebedeva,
said that the legalization of abortion had **unshackled the psy-
chology of the woman,'' that abortion had become a sort of
“psychosis.” Krivsky stated that this “psychosis” was progressing
and one could not foresee when it would stop. The result of this
“demoralization,” he said, was that the maternal feeling of the
woman was dulled. Some Soviet physicians came to the correct
conclusion that economic want was not the dominant factor for
the increase in abortions. This is quite logical; otherwise abortion
would not be so frequent among women who suffer no economic
want. In reality, abortion is a clear expression of the fact that
people first of all want sexual enjoyment, before liaving children.

On the basis of this confusion, sexual freedom was indeed
considerably restricted in the course of tlie second five-year-plan.
For example, women could no longer interrupt a first pregnancy.
It is impossible to say where this development will lead. It will
not be decided by itself, but will be determined by the outcome
of the struggle between sex-affirmative, sex-revolutionary tend-
encies on the one hand and sex-negating, sex-reactionary
tendencies on the otlier. It is to be feared that the sex-revolu-
tionary tendencies will not be able to gather sufficient momentum
to prevail against the old concepts. The result will be a splen-

LIBEHATION AND SUBSEQUENT INHIBITION 207

didly organized economy, run by neurasthenics and living
machines, but not socialism.

Let us summarize the lessons from this struggle in order to
be better prepared if society again is confronted with the task
of building a rational way of living. Tlie following are indispensa-
ble prerequisites for such a ta.sl<:

1. The elimination of all alibis and dishonest explanations,
sucli as tlie concern about the preservation of the race or the
explanation that economic want is the sole reason for abortion.
The elimination of the separation of eugenics from sexual policy
in general.

2. Recognition of the sexual function as independent from
procreation.

3. Recognition of the will to procreation as a part of the func-
tion of sexualiUj, of the desire for a child as part of tlie general
enjoyment of life. Recognition of the fact that, if the conditions
are given for a satisfactory material and sexual life, the enjoy-
ment of the child is a matter of course.

4. Open advocacy of the fact that contraception serves }iot
only the elimination of abortion, but, first of all, sexual pleasure
and health.

5. The courage to stand for sex-affirmation and sexual self-
regulation.

6. Safeguarding against the practical influence of saints,
moralists and all other kinds of disguised sexual neurotics.

7. Strictest control of the practices and ideolog\’ of the reac-
tionary professors of obstetrics and social hygiene b}' sex-hygienic
organizations of women and of youth. Eradication of the stupid
respect of the masses for the science of today which rarely
deserves this name.

The goal of rational population politics can be only that of
arousing the interest of the population themselves, instead of
imposing on tliem, from above, the duty of “preserving the race.”
The first prerequisite for reaching this goal is the affinnation of
sexual pleasure and its safeguarding for all those who take a
productive part in social life. The population must come to feel

208 LIBERATION AND SUBSEQUENT INHIBITION

that they are absolutely and eorrectly understood in this one
point, the problem of sexual pleasure, and that society is willing
to do everything possible to safeguard it and to enable them to
enjoy it.

The solution of these problems will prove relatively simple
compared to tlie mail) problem: How can the or^iasm anxiety of
the people of toclay he climinaled on a mass scale? This is a
gigantic* prol)1em. Once this problem is solved, the problem of
population politics will no longer be in the hands of sex-neurotic
academicians, but of youth, of workers, farmers and scientific
specialists. Until then, population politics and eugenics will re-
main the reactionarv formations which they are today.

THE REINTRODUCTION OF THE HOMOSEXUALITY PARAGRAPH

Soviet sexual legislation had simply scrapped the old Tsarist
homosexuality paragraph which penalized homosexuality with
long-term imprisonment. The presentation of homosexuality in
the great Soviet Encyclopedia was based on Magnus Ilirschfeld
and partly on Freud. The reason given for the abolition of the
homosexuality paragraph was that the problem of homosexuality
was exclusively a scientific one and that consecpientlv, homo-
sexuals should not be punished. It was necessary, it was said,
to take down the walls which separated the homosexuals from
the rest of society. This achievement of the Soviet government
gave the sex-political movement in Western Europe and America
a great impetus. It was, indeed, not just a propagandistic meas-
ure, but it was based on the fact that homosexuality, whether it
is considered congenital or acquired, is an activity which does
nobody any liarm. This was also the general feeling among the
population. People in general were very tolerant in sexual mat-
ters, even though, as one reporter states, homosexuals and lesbians
were occasionally “made fun of in a kindly way.” In contrast,
conservative people, as everywhere, were still under the influence
of ascetic ideologies and medieval prejudices. This class also had
its representatives in the middle and higher strata of tlie party,
so that its influence made itself gradually felt among the workers

THE REINTRODUCTION OF THE HOMOSEXUALITY PARAGRAPH 209

also. Gradually, two concepts of homosexuality crystallized them-
selves more and more:

1. Homosexuality is a ‘"sign of a barbaric lack of culture,"" an
indecency of half-primitive Eastern peoples;

2. Homosexuality is a “sign of a degenerate culture of die
perverse bourgeoisie.”

Such views, together with the general lack of clarity con-
cerning sexual problems, led to occasionally grotesque cases of
persecution of homosexuals; as time went on, diey became more
and more frequent. After all, the law abolishing punishment
could not alone solve the problem. According to sex-economic
knowledge, homosexuality is, in the vast majority of cases, a
result of a very early inhibition of heterosexual love. With the
general inhibition of the sexual revolution, therefore, a steady
increase of homosexuality among the youth, especially in the
army and navy, was inevitable. There was spying and denuncia-
tion, ostracism on the part of party committees and even “party
purges.” In individual cases, old Bolsheviks like Klara Zctkin in-
tervened and achieved acquittal. Ikit gradually, as a result of the
unsolved condition of the sexual problem in general, the wave of
homosexuality increased, until in January, 1934, there were mass
arrests of homosexuals in Moscow, Leningrad, Kharkov and
Odessa. These arrests were being justified on political grounds.
Among the arrested there were a great many actors, musicians
and other artists who, for alleged “homosexual orgies,’" were
punished with several years of imprisonment or exile.

In March, 1934, there appeared the law which prohibits and
punishes sexual intercourse between men. It was signed by
Kalinin and was apparently an emergency measure since amend-
ments to the existing laws could only be passed by the Soviet
Congress. This law designated sexual intercourse between men
as a “social crime” to be punished, in lighter cases, with imprison-
ment of from 3 to 5 years, and in the case of dependence of one
partner on tlie other with 5 to 8 years. Thus homosexuality was
again put in the same category as other social crimes: banditism,
counterrevolutionary activities, sabotage, espionage, etc. The

210 LIBERATION AND SUBSEQUENT INHIBITION

persecutions of lioinosexuals had a connection with the Rohm
alfair in Germany lielween 1932 and 1933. The Soviet press had
started a campaij^n against homosexuality as a sign of “de-
generacy of the fascist bourgeoisie.’' The well-known Soviet
journalist Koltsov had written a series of articles in which he
spoke of the “fairies of Goebbel’s propaganda ministry” and of
the “sexual orgies in fascist countries.” An article by Gorky on
“Proletarian humanism” had a decisive influence. He wrote:
“One revolts at even mentioning the horrors which fascism brings
to such a rich flowering.” What he meant was antisemitism and
homosexuality. He continued: “In the fascist countries, homo-
sexuality, which ruins youth, flourishes without punishment; in
the country where the proletariat has audaciously achieved social
power, homosexuality has been declared a social crime and is
heavily punished. There is already a slogan in Germany, ‘Eradi-
cate the homosexual and fascism will disappear.’ ”

It can be seen how confused and harmful these concepts of
homosexuality were. People failed to distinguish the Manner-
bund homosexuality which, in fact, was at the basis of Rohm’s
as well as other organizations, from the emergency homosexuality
among soldiers, sailors and prisoners which was due to the lack
of heterosexual opportunities. They overlooked, in addition, the
fascist ideology with regard to homosexuality, which was also
negative; one only has to remember June 30, 1934, when Hitler
eradicated the whole leadership of the SA with the same argu-
ment which was used in the beginning of the persecution of
homosexuals in the S.U. Clearly, such chaotic concepts regard-
ing the relationship of sexuality and fascism and regarding the
general problems of sexuality can lead nowhere. The mass arrests
of homosexuals led to a panic among the homosexuals in the
S.U.; it is said that there were numerous suicides in the army.
Up to 1934, there was no atmosphere of denunciation in the
S.U., but after these occurrences, it developed again. The general
population, on the other hand, had a tolerant attitude toward the
homosexuals.

I shall limit myself to tliis brief presentation. The connection

THE REINTBODUaiON OF THE HOMOSEXUALITY PARAGRAPH 211

between the persecution of homosexuals and the general sex-
political situation, especially of the Eastern peoples, would re-
quire an extensive presentation which cannot be given here.
The sex-economic concepts of homosexuality are presented in my
earlier books. Die Funktion des Orgasmus, Charaki’er-Ana-
LYSE, and Der Sexuelle Kampf der Jugend. In summary, one can
say the following:

1. Homosexuality among adults is not a social crime, it does
no harm to anybody.

2. It can be reduced only by establishing all necessary pre-
requisites for a natural love life among the masses.

3. Until this goal can be achieved, it must be considered a
mode of sexual gratification alongside the heterosexual one and
should (with the exception of the seduction of adolescents and
children) not be punished.

Chapter XII

THE INHIBITION IN THE Y O U T II
COMMUNES

Russian youth, in the first years of the civil war, immediately
obtained the predominant role which belongs to it. I.enin had
fully realized the significance of youth ^s will for life and had
from the beginning paid particular attention to their organ-
ization and the improvement of their economic position. The
recognition of the independence of youth was fully expressed in
tlie resolution passed at the Second Congress of the Youth Organ-
izations: “The Komsomol is an autonomous organization witli its
own constitution.” As early as 1916, Lenin had pointed out:
“Witliout complete independence, youth cannot produce any
useful socialists.”

Only an independent youth, acting without autlioritarian
discipline, and a sexually healthy youtli could, in the long run,
master the extremely difficult tasks of the revolution. The follow-
ing may serve as an illustration of the sex-political character of
independent revolutionary youth organizations:

1. REVOLUTIONARY YOUTH

Until about 10 years ago, Baku belonged to tlie most reaction-
my parts of all Russia. True, the revolution had changed the laws,
had changed economics, and religion had been declared a matter
of personal choice. But, according to Balder Olden, “under the
new roofs there was still the old, cruel morality of the harem.”
The girls were sent to religious institutions; they were not allowed
to learn to read and write, lest they establish contact with the
outer world, escape and bring dishonor to their families. That is,
the ghls were dieir father s serfs. At sexual maturity, they became

REVOLUTIONARY YOUTH

213

their husband’s serfs; they could not choose their own husbands,
they did not even see them before their marriage. Girls as well as
women had to wear veils, were not allowed to show their faces
to any man. If they were allowed to go anywhere, it was only
under guard; they were not allowed to take on work, to read a
book or a newspaper. Theoretically they had the right to get
divorced, practically they could not do it. True, the cat-o’-nine-
tails had disappeared from the prisons, but the women were still
being beaten. They had to have their children unaided, for there
were no midwives or female physicians; to show tlieinselves to a
male physician was prohibited by religion.

Then, around the middle of the ’twenties, Russian women
founded a central WomcTi’s Club which organized education.
Gradually, education spread; more and more girls listened to the
white-haired tcacliers (young men were not allowed to teach
them). Thus, many years after the social revolution, there set in
a “revolution of the mores.” The girls learned for the first time
tliat there were countries where girls and boys were educated
together, where women engaged in sports, went to the theater
and to meetings without a veil and generally took a part in con-
temporary living.

This sex-political movement spread. Wl»cn tlie family fathers,
the brothers and husbands heard what was being proclaimed in
this club, they felt their interests threatened. They spread the
rumor that the club was a house of ill fame. After that, it became
perilous for the women to visit the club. According to Olden, it
happened that girls on their way to the club had boiling water
poured on them and dogs loosed at tliem. More than that, as late
as 1923 a girl was threatened with death when she appeared in
public or wore a sport dress which revealed her arms and legs.
Under such conditions it is understandable that even the most
courageous women could not even think of a love relationship
outside of marriage. In spite of all this, there were some girls
who resolutely took up the fight for the sexual liberation of female
youth. They were made to suflFer incredibly. Of course, they were
immediately recognized, were ostracized and considered worse

214 THE INIHSmON IN THE YOUTH COMMUNES

than prostitutes, so that none of them could ever count on getting
married.

In 1928, a 20-year-old girl, Zarial Haliliva, escaped from her
parental homo and began to call meetings for the sexual emanci-
pation of women; she w'ent unveiled to the theater and wore
a bathiuc costume on the beach. Her father and her brothers sat
in judgment over her, condemned her to death and cut her up
alive. This was in 1928, eleven years after the social revolution
in Russia. Her murder gave the sex-political movement among
women an enormous impetus. Her body was taken from the
paients, put in slate at the club with an honor guard of boys and
girls. Women and girls came to the club in masses. Her murderers
were e.xeculed, and it is said that from tliat time on fathers and
brotliers no longer daied to take similar measures against the
emancipation of women and youth.

Olden describes these happenings as a cultural revolution in
general. More correctly, it was a definitely sexual revolution
which only secondarily led to a cultural consciousness among girls
and women. In 1933 there were already 1,044 girls enrolled in uni-
versities, tliere were 300 midwives and 150 women’s and girls’
clubs. They produced many authors and journalists; the president
of the highest court is a woman. The women have positions as
engineers, pliysicians and flyers. Revolutionary youth had
obtained tlieir right to live.

2. YOUTH COMMUNES

The youth communes demonstrate particularly well the role
of the sexual revolution of youth. They were the first natural
expression of a developing collective life of youth. A commune
formed by older people immediately runs into the difiBculties
presented by rigid reactions and habits. In youth, on the other
hand, particularly in puberty, everything is in flux, and the in-
hibitions have not as yet become rigid structure. Thus tlie youth
commxmes seemed predestined to success and to be able to
demonstrate the progress represented by collective living. How

YOUTH COMMUNES 215

much of a revolutionary life, tiien, established itself in the com-
munes? And what factors inhibited this progress?

Very early, the fact was recognized that the political organiza-
tion of youth and tlie care for their economic security were the
first tasks. But it was also realized that that was not sufficient.
Bucharin tried to summarize the main task in the formula, 'Touth
needs romance.” This concept seemed to become necessary when
the proletarian youth movement lost its impetus after the civil
war was over and the revolutionary events of those years gave
way to the less romantic and more laborious tasks of reconstruc-
tion. “We cannot appeal to the brain alone. For before people
understand a thing, they must feel it,” they said at the fifth con-
gress of the Komsomol. “All the romantic material of the revo-
lution must be utilized in the education of youth: the underground
work before the revolution, the civil war, the Cheka, the fights
and revolutionary deeds of the workers and the Red Army, in-
ventions and expeditions.” Chiefly, they said, a literature had to
be created in which the socialist ideal was presented in an
“inspiring form”; in which the human struggle with nature, tlie
heroism of the workers and the unconditional surrender to com-
munism was glorified. In other words, the enthusiasm of youth
was to be aroused and maintained with the aid of ethical ideals.
Reactionary ideals and ideas were to be replaced by revolutionary
ones.

In concrete terms, this means the following: Conservative
youth likes to read detective stories because of their sensational-
ism. Now, it is entirely possible to replace a detecti\ e story with
a conservative content by one with a revolutionary content; for
example, instead of a criminal being pursued by a detective it is a
White spy pursued by an O.G.P.U. man. But the experience of the
youthful reader remains exactly the same: horror, curiosity and
tension; the result is sadistic phantasies which attach themselves
to the dammed-up, unreleased sexual energy. The formation of
psychic structure does not depeml on the content hut on the qual-
ity of the accompanying vegetative excitations, A horror story has

216 THE INHIBmON IN THE YOUTH COMMUNES

tlie same effect whetlier it deals with Ali Baba and the Forty
Thieves or with the execution of White spies. The important thing
to the reader is the goose-flesh and not whether it is 40 thieves or
40 counterrevolutionaries who get decapitated.

If the revolution ar}^ movement had as its goal nothing but that
of imposing its views and of attracting people to it, then replacing
one ethical ideal with another would indeed be sufficient. If,
however, in addition, it had as its goal that of changing human
structure, of making people capable of independent thought and
action, of eradicating the serf structure, then it should have re-
membered tliat it was not sufficient simply to replace the con-
servative Sherlock Holmes by a Red Sherlock Holmes or to try to
SLupass conservative romanticism witli revolutionary romanti-
cism. In the resolutions of tlie fifth Congress it was said that
“demonstrations, torchlight processions, flags and mass concerts
must be used to the greatest possible extent to influence youth.”
While this may have been necessary, it was, nevertheless, only the
renewed use of old forms of enthusiasm and ideological influenc-
ing. The same thing was done successfully in Hitler Germany.
Tlie Hitler youth certainly does not show less enthusiasm and
surrender to the cause tlian the Komsomol. The decisive differ-
ence was this: Hitler youth swears blind and unconditional alle-
giance to a God-like Fiihrer; the thought of creating a life of their
own, witli its own laws, would never enter their minds. The task
of the Komsomol, on tlie other hand, was just that of creating a
new life for all working youth, a life in accordance with their
ovra needs; to make them independent, anti-authoritarian, capa-
ble of enjoying work and capable of sexual gratification, capable
of embracing a cause not out of blind obedience but out of dieir
own decision. They had to know that tliey were not fighting for
some abstract Gommunist “ideal,” but that the Communist goal
was the realization of their own, independent lives. What char-
acterizes authoritarian society is that its youth has no conscious-
ness of their own lives; thus, they either vegetate dully or sur-
render blindly. Revolutionary youth, on tlie other hand, develops,
out of tlie consciousness of their needs, the most powerful and

YOUTH COMMUNES

217

most sustained enthusiasm: the joy of life. To be “youtliful” and
to be “independent” means affirming sexuality. Tlie Soviet State
had to decide whether it wanted to base its power on ascetic self-
sacrifice or on sex-afiBrmative joy of life. The youthful masses, in
the long run, could be won and their structure could be changed
in the sense of socialism only with tlie aid of the affirmation of
life.

The Komsomol comprised one million members in 1 925, two in
1927, five in 1931, and almost six million in 1932. The organiza-
tion of the workers’ youth was also successful. Was the structure
of these youths changed in the sense of “complete independence”
as postulated by the resolutions of the second Congress? At the
same time, hardly 15% of the farmer youths belonged to the
Komsomol. Of 500,000 j oung farmers of Komsomol age who lived
in agricultural communes and could have been reached very
easily, only 25% belonged. Why were the other 75% not organized?
The extent to which youth can be reached is in direct proportion
to the extent to which youth organizations understand the sexual
and material needs of youth, to the extent to which they voice
tliese ]ieeds for youth and do everything possible to fulfill tliem.
New forms of living arise only out of the new contents of life, and
new contents must take new forms. Among the agricultural youth,
the change in structure will take different fonns than among the
workers’ youth, accorduig to the differences in their ways of
sexual living.

a) The commune Sorokin.

In the course of the revolutionary changes certain social forma-
tions developed which, though characteristic of this period of
transition, cannot be considered the germs of a future co mmunis t
order. Let us examine these characteristics in the case of the
famous “commune Sorokin.”

It is the prototype of a commune with an authoritarian, anti-
feminist, not specifically communistic commune, based on homo-
sexual attachments.

Sorokin was a young worker in a steam mill in the Northern

218 THE INHIBmON IN THE YOUTH COMMUNES

Caucasus. He read about the construction of “Avtostroy,” the
large Soviet automobile factory. He decided to work there. He
went to tlie nearest town, attended technical courses and organized
a group among tlie students. At the close of the course, all of the
22 graduates, fired by Sorokin s enthusiasm, went to Avtostroy,
where they arrived on May 18, 1930. These 22 young workers,
under Sorokin, formed a work commune. They all paid their
wages into a common fund from which aU expenses were paid.
It was an outspoken youth commune, none of the members being
older than 22. Eighteen belonged to the Komsomol, one to the
party, two had no afiBliation.

Their youthful enthusiasm, their ambition and indefatigability
soon got on other workers’ nerves. The director also made things
hard for them, placing them here and there, instead of letting
them all work in one place, as they wanted. Sorokin succeeded
in having the director replaced. His successor had more under-
standing for the commune. Immediately, they applied for a par-
ticularly difficult project, the draining of a marsh, where the
schedule was 70* behind. Four of the communards, among them
tlie only woman of the commune, gave up because the work was
too hard. The other 18 worked like mad. They observed the
strictest discipline. They had decided to exclude from the com-
mune any member who should miss more than two hours’ work.
One communard, who actually did so, was ruthlessly excluded,
though they all liked him.

Soon the work was 100% ahead of schedule. The fame of the
commune Sorokin .spread to the farthest corners of the establish-
ment. Now they were systematically assigned to all the tough
spots. Everywhere they inspired the other workers. Sometimes
they worked 20 hours a day. They procured two tents where they
lived together. Tims they developed a full commune. Their ex-
ample was soon followed. When Sorokin and his comrades ar-
rived, there had been 68 pioneer brigades with 1,691 members
(udarniki); they had been the only commune. Half a year later,
there were 253 brigades, among tliem 7 communes. A year later.

YOUTH COMMUNES

219

there were 339 brigades with 7,023 udarniki, and 13 communes.
Sorokin was decorated with the order of the Red Flag.

These communards remind one of tl^e collectivistic groups of
many Red Front divisions in Germany. The exclusion of women
alone characterizes them as not characteristic of the work-demo-
cratic collective of the future. Their structure is alien to the
average person. The demands they made on themselves are un-
doubtedly heroic and necessary during the hard struggles of tlic
transition period, but they do not point any way to the future.
One has to distinguish whether a commune owes its existence to
dire necessity and the getting used to each other or whether it
develops out of natural vital needs. Tlie development of many
communes in the S.U. is characterized just by this element of
transition; common work and common difficulties in factory or
army was their basis. The primitive way of living obliterated
indi\adual differences. Tlie work collectives developed into a full
collective when collective living was added to it. But such a col-
lective is as yet not a real commune, because only part of the
wages go into the common fund. The full commune was con-
sidered the *1nghest form of living.” The development of this full
commune showed that the neglect of structural and personal
problems led to a compulsive and authoritarian form of organi-
zation. The following is a good example:

There was a full commune at the State Library in Moscow,
where they had clothes, shoes and even underwear in common.
If one of the communards wanted to wear his own overcoat or
underwear, this was condemned as “petit-bourgeois.” There was
no personal life. It was prohibited to have a closer relationship
with one communard than with all the others. Love was out-
lawed. When it was found that a girl had taken a liking to a
certain communard, both were attacked as “destroyers of com-
munist ethics.” The commune soon disintegrated.

If one affirms the commune as the “family form” of the future,
the future unit of social living, it is important to study and
understand the failure of such communes. Anything which is at

220 THE INHIBITION IN THE YOUTH COMMUNES

variauce with natural human needs, any kind of authoritarian,
moralistic or ethical rule will of necessity destroy the commune.
The basic problem is how a commune can develop on the basis of
natural instead of moral conditions. The conflict between human
structure and forms of living sometimes led to grotesque phe-
nomena. Some communes went as far as regulating, to the minute,
the time of their members. The commune of the factory AMO
produced the following statistics concerning the average use of
the communards’ time:

1. Factoiy work

6 hrs. 31 min.

2. Sleep

7 hrs. 35 min.

3. Study

3 hrs. 1 min.

4. Eating

1 hr. 24 min.

5. Political activities

53 min.

6. Reading

51 min.

7. Amusements (movies, club, walks, etc.)

57 min.

8. Housework

27 min.

9. Visiting

25 min.

10. Hygiene

24 min.

11. Not ascertainable

1 hr. 32 min.

24 hrs. 00 min.

This is compulsion-neurotic. Such phenomena are definitely
pathological, they are compulsion-neurotic signs of an existence
of duty against which everything in the communards must have
revolted. The conclusion to be drawn from such things is not that
drawn by Mehnert/ that a collectivistic living is not possible, but
that a way of collecth istic living must be found which is compati-
ble with the structure of people. As long as the structure, the
thinking and feeling of the communards, is at variance with the
collective, social necessity will prevail in the form of conscience
and compulsion. It is a matter of bridging the gap between
structure and forms of living, not by compulsion, but in an
organic manner.

1 Mehnert, Klaus: Die Jugend in Sowjetrussland. Berlin: S. Fischer Verlag, 1932.

YOXJTH COMMUNES

221

b ) The work commune Bokhevo for delinquents.

This was the first work commune, established in 1924, for
delinquent adolescents at the recommendation of Dzerjinslcy,
chief of the O.G.P.U., on the principle that criminals should be
managed in an entirely free manner. The problem was how to
organize tliem. Two of tlie founders of the commune had a talk
with the inmates of the Butyrki prison in Moscow. They were
adolescents imprisoned for robbery, theft, vagrancy, etc. The
proposition of the O.G.P.U. was the following: We shall give you
freedom, the chance for education and for collaboration in the
building up of the S.U. Do you want to come along and found a
commune? The prisoners were distrustful. They could not believe
that the O.G.P.U., who had arrested them, now were going to give
them freedom. They suspected a ruse and refused at first. As it
turned out later, they decided to go and look the thing over, and
then to escape and continue their criminal career. Finally, 15 of
them tried it. Then they started setting up lists of other boys for
whom they vouchsafed and sent delegations to the prisons to get
them. Their number finally increased to 1,000.

As to work, it was decided to operate a shoe factory for the
population in the vicinity. The boys organized evervtliing them-
selves. They established communes for work, household and
education. Wages started at 12 rubles. The population protested
violently against this commune of delmquents; they were afraid
and sent petitions to the government in order to prevent it.
Gradually, this changed. There was a club and a theater, to which
the peasants also came, and in the course of a few years the
relationship between the delinquents and the population became
so good that the boys were able to establish sexual relationships
with the girls from the surrounding villages and towns.

The work expanded, so tliat by 1929 there was a daily output
of 400 pairs of shoes and 1,000 pairs of skates, in addition to
clothes. Wages ranged from 18 rubles for newcomers to 130
rubles for older members. The workers paid from 34 to 50
rubles for board and clothes. 2% of the wages were deducted for
the educational program. The newcomers were given credit until

222 THE INHIBITION IN THE YOUTH COMMUNES

they earned full wages. There was the same system of self-
government as in all Soviet factories.

While in the beginning the delinquents had been afraid of
entering tlie commune, gradually the applications became so
numerous that the commune established an entrance examination
in which the applicant had to prove that he really was a delin-
quent, that he had been arrested and imprisoned, etc.

Gradually, a library was developed, a chess club, an art gallery
and a movie theater. All these were run by the communards
themselves. There also were so-called conflict commissions. If
someone missed work or was late, he was publicly reprimanded;
on second offense, there was a deduction from his wages. In the
most severe cases, the oiOFender was condemned to 1 or 2 days'
arrest. He was gi\ en the address of a prison in Moscow, would
proceed there without any guard, finish his sentence and come
back.

In the course of the first 3 years, there were, in addition to
320 boys, 30 girls. There were no appreciable sexual difficulties
because the boys had relationships with girls in the environs.
The leader of the commune told me that tlie communards dis-
cussed sexual difficulties among each oti.cr and that excesses
occurred only very rarely. Sexual life regulated itself because
there were possibilities for full sexual gratification.

The commune “Bolshevo” is the prototype of an education
of youthful criminals based on the principle of self-government
and of changing their structure so that it becomes non-authori-
tarian. Unfortunately, such communes remained isolated in-
stances, and in the succeeding years the principle was given up,
as shown in the reports which came in 1935. It should not be for-
gotten that in 1935 the general regression to authoritarian
methods had already gone very far.

c) Youth in search of new forms of living.

At the same time as, with the aid of the NEP (New Economic
Policy), economy was reconstructed, the establishment of private
communes played a large role. Youth was supposed to put the

YOUTH COMMUNES

223

communist form of communal living into practice in collective
homes. Mehnert reports that later on these attempts again re-
ceded into the background. “One has become more sober,” he
writes in 1932. “One admits openly that there is little sense in
anticipating the final stage of socialism, communism, in the form
of small islands, at a time when the whole country is still in the
stage of liquidating the NEP and in the very first stages of
socialism. The establishment of communes was more an emer-
gency measure which is no longer needed today.” This explana-
tion is unsatisfactory. It may be that in the middle ’twenties the
establishment of youth communes was premature. The question
is, why did they fail? The Soviet development, to this day,
is characterized by a severe struggle between the new forms of
living and the old. Tlie outcome of this struggle will detennine
the outcome of the Russian revolution. The problem of the youth
communes is only a sector of the whole problem. It cannot be
said that their establishment was an “emergency measure.” Much
more likely, this highly important step of youth failed, for as yet
unintelligible reasons. E\'idently, the new could not prevail
against the old. Nevertheless, the assertion is already being made
that socialism in the S.U, is a “definitely established fact.”

Let us look at excerpts from the diary of a commune, as given
by Mehnert:

It was in the winter of 1924. It was a time of bitter need, par-
ticularly in the large cities like Moscow. The common experience
of hunger, deprivation and lack of housing brought people close
to each other. Some friends who were about to graduate from
school, finding it impossible to return again to individual fami-
lies, decided to stay together in the form of another kind of
family, and to found a commune. After a long search, some
rooms were found in the second story of an old house. On the
first floor there was a Chinese laundry, and there was steam
coming up through the cracks except between 2 and 6 in the
morning when the laundry stopped working. But that did not
matter. One was glad to have a roof over one’s head.

They moved in in April, 1925. The apartment consisted of two

224 THE INHIBITION IN THE YOUTH COMMUNES

bedrooms, a living room, called “the club,” and a kitchen; the
furniture consisted of cots, two tables and two benches. Ten
people, five girls and five young men, were to build a new life
here.

The communards were soon so busy with their work outside
that they neglected the liousehold. Soon, the diary reports the
following:

October 28. The house detail lias overslept. No breakfast.
Commune was not cleaned. After supper, the dishes were not
washed (incidentally, water is scarce).

October 29. Again no breakfast. No supper either. Dishes still
not washed. Pantry and bathroom not cleaned. There is a thick
layer of dust evervwhere. The door remained unlocked, in two
rooms the light was kept on. At two in the morning, our photo
amateur, in defiance of regulations, developed his pictures. The
drain is clogged. The pantry is a mess. The communards are
apathetic, quiet, and a few even content. Can we build a new
life like this?

A few days later the engagement of a housc'keeper was de-
bated. Was that not exploitation? After a long debate, they
arrived at the following conclusion: “Everybody is forced all the
time to use the services of others for pay: he sends his things to
the laundry, has a charwoman come in, etc. A housekeeper only
combines all these services in one person.” Thus the housekeeper
Akulina was introduced into the commune, and with her a certain
amount of order and cleanliness.

Nevertheless, the diary of the first year .shows a dark picture.
“The pressure of the difficult times has created nervousness and
irritability.” Four members have left: one girl because, as she
said, she was ruining her health in the commune; another be-
cause, as she said, one of the boys was intolerable; a third one
married and went to live with her husband; a young man was
expelled because he had kept back part of his income. This left
two girls and four boys. During the summer, new members
brought the number again to 11, five girls and six boys, all be-

YOtJTH COMMUNES

225

tween 22 and 23 years old, most of them students. Of the original
10 founders there were only four left.

Every problem, even the smallest one, was discussed in meet-
ings of tlie whole commune. There was a “commission” for every
aspect of daily living: finance commission, clothes commission,
hygiene commission which was responsible for health questions
and for providing soap and toothpaste, etc. As far as its organi-
zation was concerned, then, the commune took over the form of
state government, i.e., government by “commissions.”

But there were otlier, more fundamental difficulties, which
were not due to immediate material want, but to structural
sexual anxiety. On the surface it appeared as if “egoism,” “indi-
vidualism” and “petit-bourgeois habits” were interfering with the
collectivistic spirit of the commune. These “bad old habits” one
tried to eradicate by a moral discipline. One set an ideal, a moral
principle of the “collective life” against “egoism.” That is, one
tried to build up an organization, the principle of which was
supposed to be self-government and voluntary, inner discipline,
with the aid of moralistic, even authoritarian measures. Whence
came tliis lack of inner discipline? Could a commune, in the long
run, withstand the conflict between the principle of self-govern-
ment and authoritarian discipline?

Self-government of a commune presupposes psychic health;
this in turn presupposes all the inner and external conditions of
a gratifying love life. The conflict between self-government and
authoritarian discipline was rooted in the conflict between the
desire for collective living and the psychic structure which was
not capable of it: they failed when it came to regulate the condi-
tions of sexual living. Tlie collective was supposed to give a new
home to the youth who were tired of the parental home and of
life in the family. But these youths had, at the same time, an
aversion to tlie family and a longing for it. The little everyday
problems of housekeeping, etc., became unsolvable only by the
confusion of the sexual relationships. At first, the communards
made correct demands. They said tlie relationships had to be
“companionable” although it never became quite clear what was

226 THE INHIBITION IN THE YOUTH COMMUNES

meant by that. They pointed out that the commune was no
monastery and the communards no ascetics. The constitution of
the commune even contained the following sentences:

“We feel that there should he no reslrictions put on sexual
relationships. There has to be frankness in sexual matters; we
must have a conscious and serious attitude toward them. Other-
wise, there will be the desire for secrecy and dark corners, flirting
and other undesirable manifestations.” In these lew sentences, the
communards grasped intuitively a basic principle of sex-economy:
restriction of sexual relationships leads to clandestine and dis-
torted sexuality. Were the communards brought up in such a
manner, were they so conscious of their sexuality, so healthy that
they could live according to this sex-economically correct col-
lectivistic principle? They were not.

It soon became clear that the difficult problem of human
structure could not be solved with words and moral demands.
It became obvious that the desire on the part of a couple to be
alone, to want to be undisturbed in their love, was by no means
a lack of “companionable” attitude. The commune was confronted
with the problem of youth in all countries and all social strata:
the lack of a room of one’s own. Every room was crowded with
people. Where could there be an undisturbed love life? In found-
ing the commune, nobody had thought of the multitude of prob-
lems which would be presented by the fact of sexual living
together. These realities could not be handled by any regulation
or moral discipline. Never tlieless, an amendment to the consti-
tution was passed which was to eliminate tliis problem at one
stroke: “Sexual relatiomhips among the communards during the
first few years of the commune are undesirable.”

Tlie diary contends that for two years this principle was put
into practice. According to what we know of youthful sexuality,
we consider this absolutely impossible. Undoubtedly, the sexual
relationships took place clandestinely, invisible to the eye of the
“commission.” This reintroduced a part of the old reactionary
world. The first and correct principle of the commune, that of
being frank and above-board in sexual matters, had been broken.

YOUTH COMMUNES

227

d) The insoluble conflict between family and commune.

The difficulties of commune life were not a matter of whether
only the girls or also the boys should darn stockings; basically,
it was a question of sexual living. Tliis is shown in the partly
new and revolutionary and partly tense and apprehensive manner
in which they tried to solve their sexual problems. The final
result of these struggles was: family and commune are incompati-
ble organizations.

Early in 1928 this difficulty presented itself in an acute form.
The communard Vladimir asked for a meeting, and the following
discussion took place:

VLADIMIR: Katja and I have decided to get married. We want
to live in the commune, because we cannot imagine a life outside
of it.

KATJA: I wish to be made a member of the commune.

SEMiON: In what capacity does Katja wish to be made a mem-
ber? As Vladimir’s wife or simply as Katja? Everything depends
on that.

katja: I have had the intention of becoming a member for a
long time. I know the commmie and want to belong to it.

SERGEY: I am for it. If Katja had applied independently of the
marriage with Vladimir, I would have thought twice. But this
way it is not only a matter of Katja, but of one of our com-
munards; let s not forget that.

LETiA: I am against having to take in anybody just because he
or she is a marriage partner. First we have to consider whether
the family which thus is founded fits into the commune. True
enough, Katja is particularly qualified for this experiment, be-
cause, according to her nature, she will fit into the life of the
commune.

MISHA: The commune is in a crisis. A marriage would con-
stitute a group formation within the commune, and would further
impair the unity of the commune. Therefore, I am against Katja’s
membership.

LETIA: If we don’t accept Katja, we will lose Vladimir. We
have already practically lost him, he is hardly ever at home. I
am for it.

228 THE INHIBITION IN THE YOUTH COMMUNES

katja: I wish you to consider my case without any ‘"alleviating
circumstances'’; I wish to become a regular member of the com-
mune and not just the wife of a communard.

Resolution: Katja is accepted as a member.

A new cot was put into the girls' bedroom. Neither in the
diary nor in Mehnert’s presentation are there any concrete data
as to how tlie sexual life of the young communards took place.
The problem of tlie marriage of a communard was theoretically
solved, but tlie difficulties appeared only afterwards. After long
debates it was found that in view of tlie crowded conditions and
the lack of money, children were not desired. Children would
deprive the students of any possibility of working at home. The
diary contains the following sentences: “Marriage in the com-
mune is possible and permitted. However, in view of the existing
housing conditions, the marriage must remain without offspring.
Abortion is not allowed.”

These three sentences contain more of the problems of the
historic revolution in the S.U. than thousands of pages of for-
malistic reports:

1. Marriage in the commune is possible and permitted. In other
words, one had doubted whether it would be possible, and finally
had permitted it; after all, one could not prohibit a love relation-
ship. Nobody thought of the fact that one did not have to contract
a “marriage” in order to maintain a love relationship, because in
the ofiicial Soviet ideology the term marriage covered every kind
of sexual relationship. No distinction was made between a rela-
tionship which contained the wish for children and a relationship
which was based only on the need for love. Neither was a dis-
tinction made between a temporary relationship and a permanent
one;* one did not think of the possible end of a short relationship
or tlie gradual development of a permanent one.

2. In view of the existing housing conditions, the marriage must
remain without offspring. On the one hand, the communards
realized the possibility of entering a marriage without children
for whom there would be no space. But tlie most immediate

YOUTH COMMUNES

229

problem was where sexual intercourse could take place. In the
German revolutionary youth movement the problem had some-
times been solved by the expedient that youths who had rooms
of their own would put them at the disposal of their comrades.
As necessary as such a measure was, no official party would have
dared to advocate it officially as an emergency measure.

3. Abortion is not allowed. This sentence expresses the con-
servative tendency of admitting of a love relationship but not of
abortion; the practical solution was abstinence. The correct reso-
lution would have been: “Since for reasons of space we cannot
allow children for the time being, you cannot have children. If
you want to be together, use contraceptives and tell us when
you want to be undisturbed.”

The discussion after this resolution sliowed how helplesslv con-
fused the communards were in not distinguisliing procreation and
sexual gratification. Many communards protested, pointing out
that it was an unwarranted interference with nature, that it was
confused and harmful to health. When a year later it became
possible to acc^uire larger housing facilities for the commune, the
resolution was replaced bv a now one: “The commune allows the
birth of children.” Again, the problem of undisturbed sexual inter-
course was not touched. What wais truly revolution arv was the
attitude that children of communards would be considered the
children of the commune and would be brought up at its expense.

Here, the conflict became obvious. Clearlv, the commune was
a new fonn of the “family,” a collective of people who were not
blood relatives, which was to replace the old form of the family.
True, the collective owed its existence to the protest against the
restrictions of the family, but at the same time also to the desire
to live in a family-like community. That is, one created a new kind
of family, at the same time maintaining, within it, the old family
form. There was a great deal of confusion. The communards
passed the following resolution; “If one of tlie communards wants
to get married, the commune shall not hinder him. On the con-
trary, the commune should do everything possible to create the
conditions necessary for a family life.”

230 THE INHIBITION IN THE YOITTH COMMUNES

Tlie conliict belween family and collective sliowcd itself, con-
cretcly, in questions like the following: What if a communard
wants to marry a girl outside of die commune, a girl tliat does not
fit into die commune? Must she be accepted by the commune or
not? What if this girl does not want to join the commune? In
that case, should the husband and wife live apart? In this way,
one question led to anotlier. What the communards did not know
was the following:

1. That there was a confici between the new form of the
commune and die old structure of the communards;

2. That the commune is incompatible with the old form^ of
marriage and familtj;

3. That it was necessary to bring about an alteration in the
structure of people living in a commune, and how this could be
brought about.

The communards had not freed tlicmselves of the reactionary
concept of “marriage” with its implication of insolubility. Just
when they thought thev had settled the issue widi their new
resolutions, the following happened, accordivvg In the diary:

“Vladimir no longer loves Katja. He cainxil explain it himself.
When he married her, he loved her, but now nothing is left but
a feeling of friendship, and to continue living as man and wife,
without love, is difficult and unnecessary.’’ The result was divorce,
but the communards were very upset about it, and particularly
the girls expressed tliemselvTS violently: “Vladimir is a pig. He
should lun e thought things over before getting married. A fellov/
can’t simply marry and then after a while run away. That is just
like petit-bourgeois romanticism: when I want to I love, and
when I no longer want to, I slop. Today it is; I can’t live without
you, let’s get married, and after a while: I no longer love you,
let’s just be friends.”

How insignificant liad the influence of Soviet marriage legisla-
tion been on the structure of the communards! Thev considered
petit-bourgeois wdiat th.c petit-bourgeois himself dreaded so
much: the dissolution of a marriage relationship.

The boys showed more understanding. They said, “There is

YOUTH COMMUNES

231

no doubt that Vladimir loved Katja, and it is not his hmlt that
feeling has ceased to exist." Tlu?ve was a long debate in a full
meeting of the commune. Some said, “Vladimir is right to want
a divorce, I‘e cannot be blamed. After all, no resohuio!] of tlie
commune can force liim to love." But the majoritv condemned
him, saving tliat lie had caitered the marriage fri\ olouslv aTid had
shown liirnself unworthy of a Komsomolets and communard. In
the course of time, 5 out of the 11 communards got married. The
living C'onditions remai?ied unchanged, bovs and girls ha\ing
separate bedrooms. From a standpoiiit of sex-hvgicme, tliis is an
impossible situation.

Tlic (‘ornmnnard Tanja wrote to her liusl>and: “All I want is a
hit of sim]:)l(\ personal liappiness. I long; for a (uiiet corner where
wc could be together undisturbed, so that wc' would not have
to hide from the others, so that our relationship could be freer
and more joyful. Wliv cannot tbe commune see tliat that is a
simple human necessity?” Tanja had a healthy ro\ olnticmary
structure.

Wc can see now what made the conmuinc fail. Tlio corn-
rnunards understood Tanja wcdl; they all suffered under the
llN’ing conditions and tlie ideological coijfusio?i. but tliev were
unalile to cliaiige lljom. The subject disap'peared from delibera-
tions and the diarv and continued subterraueouslv. Of course, the
problem of tlie sc'xual rehitionsbips in the conmiune would not
have been solved if the lionsing problem had been soK ed. Solving
this problem only means creating one important external pre-
requisite. The main difficulties were structural and ideological.
The communards did not realize that one sliould not enter into a
permanent relationship unless one has eon\iiiced oneself that
each is suited to the otlier, sexually and otherwise; that, in order
to find out, a couple first has to live together for some time with-
out any obligation; that mutual adaptation often takes considera-
ble time; that they ha\e to be able to separate if they find that
they are not suited sexually; that one cannot demand love; that
sexual happiness either comes by itself or is absent. All this, these
young men and women would undoubtedly have found out for

232

TItE INinBITION IN THE YOUTH COMMUNES

themselves, had not the conventional concept of marriage and
the reactionary equation of procreation and sexuality been
second nature with them. Thc\’ had not been born with these
concepts, but noth.ing had been done to eradicate them from
social ideology.

3. INniSPENS.XBT.K S'lIU'mTnAE PREBEQUISITES

Smmnarizing the foregoing observations, we may say the
following;

1. Around 1900, tlie faniilv situation was relativelv simple.
People li\ cd in the shells of their families. There was no collective
with demands which conflicted with the familv situ.ition as well
as with the familial human structure. Nor was there anv conflict
between the family and the social order of the patriarchal
authoritarian state. Tlic suppressed scxualilv found an outlet in
hysteria, character rigidity and peculiarities, prostitution, perver-
sions, suicide, authoritarian torturing of children and in war
fanaticism.

Around 1930, the situation was considerably more complicated.
The family disintegrated in the conflict between collectivistic
production and the destruction of the economic basis of the
family. The institution of the family came to be maintained much
less by factors of economy, but all the more by factors of human
structure. It could not live and it could not die. People felt unable
to live any longer in the family, but neither did they feel able to
live withotil it. Tliey could not live with one partner forever, nor
could they live alone. In brief, there was in the conservative
countries no form of living which could take over and gratify the
human needs whicli were freeing themselves from tlie family ties.

2. In the S.U., this new form was created. It was the nem
fatiiily form of people not related Inj blood, in the collective. It
excludes the old form of marriage. Tlie next question is what
form the sexual relationships should take in such a community.
This we cannot and should not try to predetermine. All we can
do is to follow closely the sexual revolution and to support that
trend in it which is not in conflict with the economic or social

INDISPENSABLE STRUCTURAL PREREQUISITES 233

forms of a free society. Generally, this means ahsoliiic and con-
Crete affirmation of sexual happiness. This is jiossible neither in
compulsive monogamy nor in accicleiital loveless and imsatisfac-
tory relationships (“promiscuity’’). The Soviet collective excludes
as norms ascetism as well as compulsive lifelong monogamy.
Tlie sexual ixTaiionships enter a phase of enlii cly different condi-
tions. The collectiv^c makes the human rclatiorjsl ijis of the indi-
vidual so manysided that a safeguard against a change of partners
and the development of relationships with a tliird jierson is out
of the question. Only if one has complelely imderstood the pain-
fulness and tlie seriousness of the idea that the beloved pai tncr
embraces somebody else, only if one has experienced it, actively
and passively, can one understand tlie fact that tin’s problem is
not a mechanistic, economic problem Init a structural problem.
In a collective, with tlie same number of men and women, there
are greater possibilities for a change of partners.

Not to try to understand and master this painful process of the
birth of a new sexual order would be a dangerous omission. It
has to be understood and mastered not in a moralistic, but in a
life-affirmative way. Soviet youth had paid dearly for its lesson;
they should not havx‘ suffered in vain.

Human structure must be adapted to collective liv ing. This
adaptation, no doubt, will require a decrease in jealousy and the
fear of losing a partner. In general, people are inca])ab]c of sexual
independence; they are bound to their partners by loveless, sticky
ties and therefore incapable of separating from them: they are
afraid that in case of losing a partner they might not find another.
This fear is alwavcs based on infantile attachments to mother,
father or older siblings. If the family were replaced by the collec-
tive, the formation of such pathological attachments would not
occur. This would eliminate the core of the existing sexual help-
lessness, and thus enormously increase tlie possibility of finding
suitable partners. It would, if not eliminate, at least greatly
diminish the problem of jealousy. The ability to change perma-
nent relationships without undue harm and suffering is one of
the cardinal problems.

234 THE INHIBIIION IN THE YOUTH COMMUNES

The alteration of people's structure should make them capable
of experiencing* simultaneously tender and sensual gcaiital love,
capable of experiencing sexuality fully from childliood on, that is,
capable of orfjastic polniaj. The prevention of sexual disturb-
ances, of neurotic, unsatisfactory p()l)'gainy, of sticky neurotic
sexual transference, of unconscious sexuality, etc., will require
gigantic eilorts. It is not a mailer of telling people how they
should live; it is a matter of bringing tliem up in such a manner
tliat the^' will be able to regulate their sexual life tliemsehes,
williout sociallv dangerous complications. This presupposes, in
the first place, ilic iinUihihitcd, socialltj iindrrwrillcn development
of nainral Onlv then will tlie alnlitv to be frank with

one's sexual partner develop, and the abilitv to tolerate emotions
of jealoiisx' willioul proceeding to brutal actions. Tlie conflicts of
sexual life cannot be* elfacxTl from the earth, but llun’r solution
cam, and should be, facilitated.

A consistent social prevention of the neuroses would see to it
that people would not neuroticallv coinplicale their unavoidable
everyday conflicts. If the masses of people had a natural sexual
self-confidence, moral hypocrisy would become a social crime.
The idea of collectivT^ living has nothing to do with tlm idea of a
paradise. Struggle* and pain and sexual jflciisure are part of life.
The essential point is that ])e()ple should bo capalfle of con-
sciously experiencing pleasure and pain and capable of rationally
mastering it. Such people would be incapable of serfdom. Onh/
genUedhj Iwalthij people are capable of xxdiniianf work and non-
authoritarian svlf-determination of their lives. Unless this has be-
come clear, tlie task of altering people s structure will fail; more
than that, it will not even be understood. The non-adaptation of
human sexual structure to collective living will lead to objectively
reactionary results. Kvery attempt to bring about this adaptation
by moral, authoritarian clemands must inevitably fail. One cannot
demand, “voluntary” sexual discipline. It is either there or it is
not. All one can do is to aid people in the full development of their
natural capacities.

Chapter XIII

SOME PROBLEMS OF INFANTILE
SEXUALITY

The Russiai) kindergariens whicli I \ isitcd iu 1929 had an
excellent eollcc*tive organization. A kindergarten) oi 30 children
liad 6 teachers who spent 5 hours with the cLildren and 1 hour
preparing for the w^ork. Tlic head of tlie school and the house-
keeper were factory w'orkers; the teaeliers liad a sc'cretary. About
15 of the children WT;re lactorv workers' clhldren, the others
children of students. The board consisted ol the head, one
teacher, two parent representative's, a representative of the dis-
trict and a plivsioiaii. The children were brought up without
religion; work w^ent on on holidays. The choice of teaching
subjects was striking; there w^ere such subjects as, ‘AVliat is the
significance of tlie forest for pc^ople/’ or "for tlieir healtl)? ' The
children did much work with ww)d.

With regard to scxtialifti^ things were less satisfactory. The
teachers complained about the nervousness of the children. Many
children showed sleeping ceremonials as protection against mas-
turbation. Often, children who masturbated were taken) iiway by
the parents. A teacher remarked, ^'Even cliildren of physicians
masturbate.” Here is a little observation: Talking with the head
teacher, I looked out of the wandow^ and wnitclied the children
playing in the gardem. A little boy wtis taking out his penis and
a little girl was w^atching it. This happened at the very moment
when the head teacher was assuring me that in her kindergarten
‘'siicli things” as infantile masturbation and infantile sexuality
did not occur.

235

236

SOME PROBLEMS OF INFANTILE SEXUALITY

1 . THE CREATION OF A COLLECTIVE STRUC:TURE

The history of the formation of ideologies shows that every
social system, consciously or unconsciously, makes use of the
influencing of children in order to anchor itself in the human
structure. If we follow this anchoring process of the social order
from matiiarchal to patriarchal society, we find that the sexual
education of the child is the core of this influencing process. In
matriarchal society, based on the social order of primitive com-
munism, the children enjoy complete sexual freedom. To the same
extent to which patriarchy develops, economically and socially,
we also find the development of an ascetic ideology as applied
to the children. This change is in the service of creating structures
with an autitoritarian attitude instead of the previous non-
authoritarian structure. In matriarchy, there is a collective sex-
uality of tlic children, corresponding to collective living in
general; that is, the child is not forced into any preconceived
forms of sexual life by any fixed norms. The free sexuahty of the
child provides a firm structural foundation for its voluntary
adaptation to the collective and for voluntary work discipline.

With the de\"elopment of the patriarchal family, the sexual
suppression of the child developed to an increasing extent. Sexual
playing with playmates came to be forbidden, masturbation to be
punished. Roheim’s report on the Pitchentara children shows
clearly in what tragic manner the whole character of the child
changes once its natural sexuality is suppressed. It becomes shy,
apprehensive, afraid of authority and develops unnatural sexual
impulses, such as sadistic tendencies. The free, unafraid behavior
is replaced by obedience and dependence. The fighting down of
tlie sexual impulses requires much energy, attention and “self-
control.” To the extent to which the vegetative energies of the
child can no longer flow toward the outer world and into in-
stinctual gratification, it loses its motor strength, its motility, its
courage and its sense of reality. It becomes “inhibited.” In the
center of this inhibition is always the inhibition of motor activity,
of running, jumping, romping, in brief, of muscular activity. One

THE CREATION OF A COLLECTIVE STRUCTURE 237

can easily observe in all patriarchal circles how children, at the
age of about 4, 5 or 6, become rigid, quiet, cold and begin to
armor themselves against the outer world. In this process they
lose their natural charm and often become awkward, unintelli-
gent and “difficult to manage”; this in turn provokes an accentua-
tion of the patriarchal methods of upbringing. This is also the
structural basis of religious tendencies, the infantile attachment
to the parents and the dependence on them. What the child has
lost ill natural motility it now begins to replace by imaginary
ideals. It becomes introvert and neurotic, a “dreamer.” The
weaker it becomes in its reality functions, in actual feeling and
achievement, the more rigid become the ideal demands which it
makes on itself in order still to achieve something. We must make
a strict distinction between two forms of ideals: those originating
from the natural vegetative motility of the cliild, and those
originating secondarily from the necessity for self-control and
instinctual suppression. The first arc the basis of voluntary, free-
flowing productive work, the latter the basis of work as duty.
Thus, in patriarchal society the principle of self-regulation in
social adaptation and of joyful work is replaced structurally by
the principle of authoritarian obedience and work as duty, to-
gether with rebellion against it. This sketch must suffice here.
In reality, these things are very complicated and can be ade-
quately presented only in the framework of special character-
analytic studies.

What interests us here primarily is the question how a self-
governing society reproduces itself in the children. Are there
specific differences between the educational repi oduction of the
patriarchal and the self-governing, non-patriarchal system? There
are two possibilities:

1. That of indoctrinating the child with revolutionary instead
of patriarchal ideals;

2. That of altogether relinquishing ideological indoctrination
and of forming, instead, the structure of the child in such a
manner that it reacts of itself collectively and accepts the general
revolutionary atmosphere without rebellion.

238

SOME PROBLEMS OF INFANTILE SEXUALITY

The second method is in keeping witli the principle of the
desired self-regiilation; the first is not.

If in all periods of history the structure of children has been
molded by way of tlicir sexual education, tlie revolutionary
slructurc can be no exception. There were, in the S.U., many
attempts in this direction. Many teachers, especially tliose witli
a psychoanalytic orientation, such as Vera Schmidt, Spielrein
and others, attempted to institute a positive scxn;i] education.
Yet, these were onlv isolated instances, and, tiikeji all in all, /he
sexual educatiou of chlldrcAi in the S.U. remained sex-negalive.
This fact is of exLrcme importance. Naturally, ihe snucture of the
cliild would Inive to be in liarmonv witb I he clesired collective
living. This was inniossible without tl.e iilfirmation oi infantile
sexuality, for one cannot bring up cluldren in a collective and
at the same time suppress the most lively of their impulses, the
sexual one. If one does suppress it, the child, tliough it lives
outwardlij in tlic collective, has to spend e\ en more of its inner
energies to suppress its sexuality than it would in tlie family and
will develop more serious conflicts and will get CN cn lonelier. In
this situation, tlie educator has only one possibility, that of strict
discipline, of an '‘order” enforced from the outside, of anti~scxual
restrictions and ideals. This becomes all tlie more difficult in that
in the collective, sexuality receives more stimulation than in the
family. This is why the objections against collective education
are usuallv motivated l>v the fear that the cluldren will go “bad,”
i.e., will show sexual impulses.

The impressions made by the kindergartens were quite contra-
dictor)'. There were old patriarchal forms alongside new, unusual
and promising ones. The children, guided by a teacher, had to
decide tilings for themselves (“self-govenimcnt”). An innovation
which is undoubtedly important for the alteration of strueture is
the combination of manual work with intellectual learning. The
so-called work schools, where besides the usual school subjects
the children also learn a trade, are undoubtedly the prototype of
educational ifistitutions which will produce collective structures.
Until only a few years ago, there was a truly companionate rela-

THE CREATION OF A COLLECTIVE STRUCTURE

239

tioiisliip between students iind tciacliers. A particularly impressive
example of revolutionarv structure formah’fvn were tlie so-called
“flying kindergartens” in the cultural park in Moscow. The visi-
tors to the park couh.1 leave their rhilcli(aj in a kindergarten
wliere teaehcTS plaved with them. Tins did away with die de-
pressing sight of the child who, bored and unwilling, walks along
the park with its parents or governess. Thus, children got to
know eacli other and had a chance to play logi^llier. (Uhldren
from 2 to 10 came togetlier in a large room and reeei\ed some
primitive instrument such as a kev, spoon or piat(\ A iniisic
teaclicT would sit at a piano and ])]av s(>nu Witliout anv

direction or prodding, the c'hildren would ])egiri to catch d^e
rhythm and jiarticipatc witli their “instninaasts.” Not tlic exist-
ence of a cultural park is spccificallv revolulionarv; llu'}' exist in
the most reactionary (‘ountries. But duit tiie cliildren were
brought together and enleriaincd in tliis fusijion was revolution-
ary. In this WTiy, the* motor and rhythmic iK'cds of llie children
w ere taken into account, (dnldrcm v/ho expci ’crn'c the io}’ of such
seemingly unorganized play will dexadop a re\ olutionai'/ idcol()g\*
themseb es instead of leaving to be indoctrinated wdtli it.

The (piestion of managing injanfilc molar aclivihi leads us to
tlie center of the problcmi o! education. Tlic task of a vcvohition-
arv movement, (juitc gc!)era]]\\ is diat of liberating mid gratilving
the previoiisK' suppressed ic y‘’ati\ e impulses. Tin’s is IIk' ixrd
mcauing of a fme ccoa.oi'L : ’ Fiaienl auvl c\cr increasing possi-
bilitic^s of the griitification of their needs should enable people to
develop tlieir natural abilities and needs. A cluld which is un-
inhibited and free in its motility is not likely to be receptive
toward roaetionarv ideologies and mores. On tlie other liand, a
child wdiich is inhibited in its motilitv is prone to accept any kind
of ideology. Here we should mention the attempts of tlie Soviet
government in the first years after the revolution to give the
children full freedom to criticize their parents. This w^as a meas-
ure which at first was not at all understood in Western liiiropean
countries. Many children called their parents by tlieir first najiies.
That is, school as well as parental home began to change their

240 SOME PROBLEMS OF INFANTILE SEXUALITY

attitude in the sense of producing a revolutionary structure in
the children. This tendency, which might be illustrated by many
more examples, was opposed by another one which began more
and more to gain the upper hand. Recently, the latter triumphed
in that tlie pat ents again were given the responsibility for educa-
tion. This meant another regression to patriarchal forms of
upbringing. The work on the complicated problems of collective
upbringing seemed to cease. Family upbringing became again
the rule. There was a corresponding change in tlie type of politi-
cal education in the schools. For example, one reads in pedagogi-
cal magazines that the children engage in political contests.
Questions like, “What was the thesis at the .Sixth World Con-
gress?” show that the compulsive indoctrination with Communist
ideology has become tlie method of choice. A child, of course, is
unable to grasp or judge any theses of a W'orld Congress. No
matter how good it is at such contests, no matter how well it
recites the theses: that does not protect it in the least against
fascist influences. It will be just as easily indoctrinated with
fascist ideologies. In contrast, a child ivith a completely free
motility and natural sexuality will spontaneously resist the influ-
ence of ascetic and authoritarian ideologies. In the authoritarian,
superficial and external mfluencing of the children, the political
reaction can more than compete with the revolutionary educa-
tion. Not so in tlie field of sexual education. No reactionary or
political ideology can offer to the children what the social revo-
lution can offer them with regard to their sexualitv.

It is clear, then, that in order to produce a non-authoritarian
structure in the child, its vegetative, sexual motility must be
safeguarded.

2. THE CREATION OF A NON-AUTHORITARIAN STRUCTURE IN THE CHILD

The central task in bringing about a non-authoritarian structure
in people is the sex-aflBrmative education of the child.

In August, 1921, the Moscow psychoanalyst Vera Schmidt
founded a children’s home in which she undertook the experi-
ment of a correct upbringing of small children. Her experiences.

CREATION OF A NON- AUTHORITARIAN STRITCTURE IN THE CHILD 241

published in 1924 in a pamphlet, Psyctioanalyttc: Education in
Soviet Russia, show that what sex-economy teaches today with
regard to early upbringing, developed there spontaneously out
of a realistic attitude of affirming pleasure. Her work was entirely
in the direction of affirming infantile sexuality.

The main principles of the home were the following: Tlie
teachers were told that there was to be no punishment, that they
should not even speak sharply to the children. Praise and blame
were considered as judgments which were incomprehensible to
tlic child and served only the purpose of the adult. Thus the
authoritarian moralistic principle was eliminated. What took its
place?

Wliat was judged was the objective result of the childs action
and not the child itself. In other words, one would call a house
drawn or built by the child beautiful or ugly, tvifhout either
praising or reprimanding the child for it. If there was a fight, the
child was not reprimanded but showm what it had done to the
other child.

The teachers had to guard against passing any judgment on
the behavior or peculiarities of the children. Violeiit demonstra-
tions of affection on the part of the teachers, like kisses and
embraces, were not allowed. As Vera Schmidt correctly points
out, such demonstrations always serve the gratification of the
adult rather than of the child.

This did away with anotl^'r harmful principle of moralistic
authoritarian upbringing: those who feel justified in beating
children also feel justified m using them for livii^g out their
unsatisfied sexuality; this is seen particularly clearlv in the rabid
advocates of family upbringing. Once one relinquishes disci-
plinary measures and moralistic judgment, there is no longer anv
need for patching up with kisses the harm one has done with
beatings.

The whole environment of the child was adapted to its age
and special needs. Toys and materials were chosen according to
the child’s urge for activity and so that they would stimulate its
creative abilities; if the children’s needs changed, the toys and

242 SOME PROBLEMS OF INFANTH^E SEXITALITY

materials wca'c clam^^ed correspondingly. Tliis principle of adapt-
ing the material to the need instead of adaptirug tltc need to the
material is in fnll liarn onv with the basic (‘Oncepis oi sex-ccon-
oinv; it a])p]ies to tl c totality ef social existence, hconouiic
institutions should he (' Japted to the needs, instead ol tlie needs
b(an<,t adapted to t!.»e c'Kisiinf?; eeonoinv. This scx-econoinic pnn-
ciple, as demonstrcitcd in Vera SehIn^dt^s kinder‘»;:nien, is tlu'
opposite of tlv- moradis iC authoritarian princi])le enpdoyed in the
Montessori schook^ whene tlie children ])ave to serve their mate-
rials, as it were.

Vera Sclnnidt said: If the child is to adjust itself to extenail
reahtv widnont the gn atest difficult i('S, the outer world sltonld
not appear to tlic child as an iine.iicrd. somediing. We try, ll.ere-
fore, to realit^’ as pleasrnaibh' a.s i)Ossible for the child and

to replace every priinili\e plca.surc which it is sin^posed to learn
to renounce, with other, rational pleasurcss.”

That means, if tlie cl iid is to adjust itself \ (diintari1y to reality,
it must first learn to \o\c this reality. It must be a])l(» to identify
itself joyfully with the emironment: tliis is the sex-econoivn’c'
principle. In contrast, die moralistic aiidioritariaii principle tries
to adjust the cliild to ar inimical environmenf bv means of a sense
of duty and with llie aid of moral pres.sure. If a mother or teacher
behaves in such a wa- that tlie child loves her sponlaneouslv,
t])at is sex-economic. social or religions demand, “Yon must
love your mother/’ wheduer slie is lovable or not, is moralistic,
authoritarian.

The necessity of adjniiting tliemselves to social living was made
easier for the children in m:my wavs. 71ie demands for soehal
living came from daily livii.g and the children’s community itself,
not from the wdiims of ncnrolic, ambitious and lo\'e-star\ ed
adults. The children w^erc t‘ Id simply whv certain things were
asked of them; the;/ were not given orders. Self-confidence and
a feeling of independence on the part of the children were de-
veloped and supported, because those cliildrcn will most easily
adjust to the necessities of life who are not being led but are
self-confident and independent. Such facts are completely in-

CREATION OE A NON- AUTHORITARIAN STRUCTURE IN THE CHIU) 243

c()mprclieusi]>]e to the top-sor^eai’t typo of educator, and yet,
they arc a luaiier of c'ourse. The sox-eco?)ouno principle of
voluntary rcnnuc iaiiovi of a typo of gratification uo longer possible
socially was also used in life training for cleanliness. Froliibitions
of any kind on the part of the teachers were out of tlu' cpiestion.
The children did not kno\v tlntl thenr sexual impulses could be
judged any dilferently fropf their oilier natural bodily needs.
Thus they satisfied them waihout embarrassment in tlie presence
of the teachers, as iiiituralh as hunger or thirst. This made any
secrecy unnecessary, incae :se<l t]»e childrens confidence in the
teachers, furthered iheir adjustmeul to reality and thus laid a
sound basis for the total dc'/elopment. Under these conditions,
the teacluTS had the possibility of watching the sexual develop-
ment of the childiiMi step l.)v sU^', and liniheving the sublima-
tion of this or that impulse.

Vera Schmidt points on! tint tlie educator must coustantly
work on himself. Il as shv>v. in the kiiiderf ^artcan that restless-
ness or disorder auunig \hc ( liildren was regularly the result of
iineouscious neurotic attitudes on the part of the teachers. A
sex-econoinic iipbrir.gijnjf of tla* small child is absolutely impos-
sible as long as tlic educators arc not free from irrational tenden-
cies or have not, at least, learned to recognize and control them.
This becomes iminediately e\adent if one looks at tlie concrete
aspects of tin's type of education.

In so-called WV'stcrn cnltnre, mothers and nurses cannot tol-
erate it if the child is nof trained to the potty within tlic first year
of life. In Vera Schmidt’s kindergarten, no attempt was juade to
put the children on the jiot ‘hit regular intervals ’ until aliout the
end of the second year of life. Even then, they were never in any
way forced. Nor were tliey reprimanded if they wet themselves.
It was passed over as a natural hapjiening.

This central fact of infantile training to cleanliness shows the
prerequisites wliich have to be fulfilled before ojie can ev^en
think of a sex-economic upbringing of the child. In tlie family it
is impossible; it is possible only in tlie col!oct^,e. While ignoraii*^
physicians and educators believe that bedwetting calls for di*astic

244 SOME PROBLEMS OF INFANTILE SEXUAITTY

punitive measures (wliieh only create a fixation of the disturb-
ance) Vera Schmidt reports the following: A girl of about 3 suf-
fered a relapse into bedwetting. No attention was paid to it, and 3
months later the girl became clean again by herself. This is
another fact which will remain inconceivable to the authoritarian
educator. Nevertheless, it is a matter of course.

“The attitude of the children toward the question of cleanli-
ness,’’ writes Vera Schmidt, “is conscious and matter-of-course.
There is no feeling of ‘shame’ connected with these processes.
Our method seems liable to save the children from the severe
traumatic experiences usually connected with the training for
sphincter control.” She is undoubtedly correct in this. Clinical
experience shows that the most frequent cause of severe dis-
turbance of orgastic potency in the adult is the strict training to
excremental cleanliness. It creates an association of shame with
the genital function. In this way, the capacity for regulating
the vegetative energy household becomes disturbed. Vera
Schmidt’s procedure was entirely correct: children who do not
associate shame with the excretory functions do not develop
corresponding genital disturbances later on.

The children in the home were not in any way hindered in
satisfying their desire for motor activity; they were allowed to
run, to jump, to romp, etc. Thus they were able not only to live
out these natural impulses but also to put them to use. This is
completely in accord with the sex-economic concept that the
freedom of the infantile impulses is the prerequisite for their
social and cultural utilization, while their inhibition makes their
sublimation impossible because they become repressed.

In our kindergartens, on the other hand, where children are
being made “capable of culture” and “adjusted to reality” by
inhibiting their motor activity, children of the ages of 4, 5, or 6
show an alarming change in their whole behavior: it changes from
being natural, lively and active to being quiet and “well-behaved”;
the children grow cold. Anna Freud, in her book, PsYCiiOANALysis
FOR Teachers, confirms this finding, without, however, criticizing
it; more than that, she considers it a necessity, because her

CREATION OF A NON- AUTHORITARIAN STRUCTURE IN THE CHILD 245

conscious goal is that of bringing up the child to become a con-
servative citizen. Tliis is based on the erroneous assumption, from
which all conservative education suffers, that the natural motility
of the child is at variance with its capability for culture. The
exact opposite is true.

A very important part of Vera Schmidt's report is that dealing
with rnasttirbaticm. She found that the children masturbated
'relatively little.” Quite correctly she distinguislied two forms of
masturbation: One caused by the physical stimuli arising from
the genitals and serving only the satisfaction of the urge for
genital pleasure, and that other form of masturbation which
occurs as "a reaction to an insult, a disparagement or a limitation
of freedom.” The first form presents no difficulties. The second
form results from an increased vegetative excitability as a result
of fear or stubbornness which the child tries to discharge by
means of genital stimulation. Vera Schmidt grasped this fact
c )rrectly, while Anna Freud erroneously considers tlie so-called
excessive masturbation in children an "instinctual living out.”
It is to be noted that under the conditions of a sex-aflBrmative
education masturbation occurred "without any secrecy, under the
eyes of the teachers.” If one knows the tremendous masturbation
anxiety of the average educator, one understands that first of all
"die educator has to be educated” before he is able calmly to
watch die natural sexual expressions in the child.

In the same way, the children were absolutely free to satisfy
their sexual curiosity among themselves. There was no objection
to their mutually inspecting each other; correspondingly, their
utterances concerning the naked body were "entirely calm and
objective.” "We noticed that the children did not demonstrate
interest in the sexual organs when they were naked but only
when drey were dj essed,” When the children asked sexual ques-
tions, these were answered clearly and truthfully. They knew,
says Vera Schmidt, no parental authority and force. To them,
father and mother were ideal beings whom they loved. "It is
quite possible,” writes Vera Schmidt, "that such good relation-

246 SOME PROBLEMS OF INFANTILE SEXUALITY

ships with the parents can develop only when education takes
place outside of the parental home.”

While the practice of this kindergarten was entirely in accord
with the sex-economic affirmation of sexuality and of life in
general, the theoretical concepts diverged. In explaining the
principles of tlie liome, Vera Schmidt speaks of the “overcoming
of the pleasure principle” and the necessity of replacing it by
the “reality principle.” She had not freed herself from the errone-
ous psychoanalytic concept of the mechanistic antithesis between
pleasure and achievement; she had not recognized that the
realization of the pleasure principle at any given stage is the best
prerequisite for sublimation and social achievement. Her practical
work, in fact, contradicted her theoretical concepts.

An important factor for t!ie evaluation of sucli collectivistic
attempts to change the structure of the coming generation is the
fate suffered by this children’s home. Very soon after its founding,
all kinds of rumors began to spread in the city. It was said that
the most horrible things were going on there, that, for example,
the teachers, for the purpose of experiment, indulged in prema-
ture sexual stimulation of the children, etc. The authorities who
had agreed to the foimding of the home instituted an investiga-
tion. Some educators and pediatricians spoke in its favor, the
psychologists, of course, against it. The commissariat for educa-
tion declared diat the home could not continue to function but
gave as tlie reason tlie high cost of its maintenance. The real
reason was a different one. The directorship of the Psychoneuro-
logical Institute, with which the home was affiliated, had just
changed hands. The new director, who was also a member of the
investigating committee, gave a negative report; more than that,
he insulted tlie workers and the children at the home. Thereupon
tlie Psychoneurological Institute not only withdrew its economic
but also its ideological support.

Just as the home was about to close, a representative of the
German miners’ union, “Union,” appeared and offered, in the
name of the German and Russian miners’ unions, to support the
home financially and ideologically. From April, 1922, on, the home

SHAM-REVOLUTIONARY, PASTORAL EDUCATION 247

was supplied by the Gerinan uuion with food and by the Russian
union with coal. But the liorne could not continue for lon^. Com-
missions, invcstigalions and the withdrawal of support forced it
to close. It is significant that this happened at about the same
time that the general inln'bitioii of tlie Russian sexual revolution
began to assert itself.

The fact should not go unmentioned that the International
Psychoanalytic Association also had a partly skeptical, partly
negative attitude toward Vera Sclunidt's experiment. This nega-
tive attitude was an expression of the later development of psy-
choanalysis into an fln/fsexual theorv. Nevertheless, the work of
Vera Schmidt was the first attempt in the histon/ of education
to give the theory of infantile sexuality a practical content. As
such, it is of historical importance. Undoubtedly, Vera Schmidt
was the first educator vrho, purelv intuitively, grasped the neces-
sity as well as the nature of the alteration of human structure
in a practical manner. And, as always in the course of the sexual
revolution, authorities, “scientists,’' psychologists and established
educators paved the way for regression and defeat, while trade
unionists, without any theoretical knowledge, showed in a prac-
tical way that they had grasped the full importance of the
problem.

We shall now compare this correct attempt with the simulta-
neous activities of an allegedly revolutionary educator. This
comparison will show that if there should ever be a new attempt,
one will have to rely on simple people with a natural feeling for
life and not on the reactionary professionals in the field of educa-
tion and psychology.

3. SHAM-REVOLUnONARY, PASTORAL EDUCATION

In no other field does the revolutionary educator meet as
difficult problems as in that of sexual education. True, it cannot
be separated from education as a whole, but it presents diflicul-
ties all of its own. The educator himself, even though he may
come from a revolutionary home, has gone through a thorough
conservative sexual education. Parental home, school, church

248 SOME PROBLEMS OF INFANTILE SEXUALITY

and tlie whole? conservative t^n\irenino?rit have permeated him
with sex-iienatine; attitudes; these come in conflict with his own
revolutionary attitudes. Nevertlicless, if he wants to educate
children in a revolutionary instead of in a reactionary sense, he
must rid himself of his reactionary views, develop a point of view
of his own in keeping with his class and must put it into practice.
He will take over essential parts of conservative pedagogy, will
throw out many parts of it as aiitisexual, and will adapt other
parts. This is a big and difficult task which has hardly begun to
be tackled. The greatest difficultv' is that presented by the clerics
in the revolutionary camp. They are reactionary, sexually warped
intellectuals, revolutionaries due to neurotic motives who, in-
stead of contributing positive knowledge, only cause confusion.
One of these is Salkind, a member of the Communist Academy
and of the International Psychoanalytic Association. His views
were fought bitterly by the revolutionary youth in the S.U. but
these views governed offici::! ideologv\ in Russia and also in
Germany. His article, “Einige Fragcn der sexuellcn Erziehung
der Jungpioniere” {Das prolctariscl.e Kind, 12 Nr. 1/2, 1932)
created much confusion, as the German Sexpol discovered again
and again. We sliall use this article to show how hopeless is a
mingling of revolutionary form and sex-inimical content.

Salkind starts out with the correct statement that the pioneer
movement exerts influence on the children in their “most impor-
tant phase of development,’" that it has means at its disposal which
the family and the scl»ool lack. But he has a concept of infantile
sexuality which is no belter than the church concept. All other
mistakes of Salkind and his like derive from this concept. He
writes:

For this reason [because the pioneer movement has better means
at its disposal than the family] it must become the main force in the
fight against the parasitic sexual channeling of the groioing childrens
energy.

According to Salkind, infantile sexuality is “parasitic.” How
does he arrive at this evaluation? Wliat does he mean by it? What

SHAM-REVOLUTIONARY, PASTORAL EDUCATION 249

conclusions for education does he draw from it? “Parasitic” means
something which is foreign to the organism. Tliis sexual philoso-
pher, whom the S.U. tolerates, holds seriously that the “channel-
ing” of energy into the “parasitic,” the sexual, should be pre-
vented.

If the pioneer leaders know how to present to the children the
material of pioneer work in a fomi corresponding to their age, no
energy will be left over for parasitic dominants.

That is, Salkind believes that the sexual interests of the chil-
dren can be eliminated. He docs not ask himself how the col-
lective interests could be brought into harmony wit!) the sexual
interests, or where they conflict with eacl» other and wliere not.

One might ask what is the difference here between Salkind
and any priest or reactionary pedagogue; th.cy, too, arc con-
vinced of tlic possibilitv of completclv divertivig the sexual
ericrgy. Today it is no longer possible to deny tlie existence of
infantile and adolescent sexuality. Today, the slogan is that of
complete div^eision of the sexual energies, which is only tlic old
tiling in a new form. It never even occurred to Salkind to ask
why it is that church ;ind reactionary society do not permit an
infantile sex life, lie did not realize lliat, if lie v/ants to set up
rules for revolutionary education, he should first give his reason
why, nevertheless, he takes the same point of view as the reac-
tionary educator. He vaguely seems to arrive at such a reason
in his assumption that sexual life and collectivism are antithetical;
he wishes to eliminate sexuality in tlie interest of collectivism.

it is mainly neglected, lonely children who become victims of pre-
mature strivings, children who lack in active companionship with
children of their own ago . . . The more tlicy are isolated from the
collective and indulge in loneliness, the closer they come to a preco-
cious sexual parasitism.

Tliese are ignorant, empty phrases. For what is “premature”?
Is it premature when a child of four masturbates? Is it premature

250

SOME PROBLEMS OF INFANTILE SEXUALITY

when an adolescent of 13 or 15, who is sexually mature, satisfies
himself? Is it premature if he wants sexual intercourse? Salkind
and his ideological companions prove, with their abstract,
slogan-like argumentation, t!nit they failed to come down from
the regions of abstract etliics to the reaiities of infantile and
adolescent life. Contrary to Salkind s statement, those pioneer
leaders were completely right wlio proceeded to gix^e sexual en-
lightenment as soon as they noticed unhealthy sexual manifesta-
tions in their groups. F.verv sensible youth leader kiiows tliat it
is not the lack of “collectivism’" which causes the so-called
“sexual conditions” but that the reverse is true: t!ie disruption
of infantile sex life— caused and maintained, among other things,
by such views as Salkind’s— is the most iTn]>ortant c.'mse of dis-
turbed collective living. It will never he possible to build up
collectivism on the basis of sexual suppression— except in an au-
thoritarian manner. According to Salkind, “incessant collective
control of the children’s sexual and othen* beba\ ior should be the
basis for a healthy sexual development.” “Healthy” in this case
means, of course, “asexual.” These “pioneer ethics” Salkind pro-
poses to achieve by “aj)propriate organization of work.”

But now let us get out of the realm of empty words and trv
to imagine in concrete terms what these proposals mea?i. How
long are the adolescents supposed to work? Uninterruptedly? At
night too, in bed, so that they will not touch tlun’r genitals? And
when the children and adolescents are at pla\% should we exercise
“incessant collective control” to prevent their falling in love and
having “romances”? Salkind explicitly speaks of “children” when
referring to adolescents of 13 to 16 years of age, that is, adoles-
cents of sexual maturity! Why should they not fall in love and
have “romances”? Because it disturbs collectivism? Or because
people with Salkind’s mentality cannot stand it? In public dis-
cussions of youth organizations in Berlin the fact was ascer-
tained beyond any doubt that the groups were likely to disinte-
grate precisely when there were too few girls, and that they held
together when there was an approximately equal number of
boys and girls. This certainly was not so because they “exercised

SHAM-REVOLUTIONABY, PASTORAL EDUCATION 251

incessant collective contror" in order not to let any ‘unnecessary
thoughts of love” come up. No, it was because they found
partners, and the sexual life ceased to be sonietliing which inter-
fered with the collective. The Salkinds arrive at tlicir absurd
statements because they fail to distinguish IwaUlnj from dis-
turbed sex life; because they fail to examine the causes of a
sex life; I)ccause they fail to see that it is precisely the inhibition of
healthy sexuality which creates a disturbed sextialitv which tlien
makes a collective working together iinpcjssiblc. How wooden,
bureaucratic and life-inimical is the following thesis:

An active colkx'tivi.sin is tlie best means for d(‘veloping a Iceling of
sexual equality. A eo>worker does not stimulate any useless thoughts
of love. For that there is neither energy nor time left.

What does “sexual equality” mean here? We are for sexual
equality; we figlit the political reaction with the ideology of
healthy sexuality. The Salkinds, on tlie other lunid, propagate
“sexual equality” in the prohibition of a sex life. Precisely like
the leaders of a Catholic youth organization, with the one differ-
ence that they do not deny coeducation; not tjet} But this is
just the way in which they arrive at absurdities. Concretely;
what are we to do according to Salkind's ideology when a boy
and a girl work together on an important project and -Salkind’s
Ten Commandments notwithstanding—fall in love with each
other? What is to be done then? Exercise collective control?
“Smothering” tlie love in still more work? Or enforce sexual
equality in abstinence? This at an age which Salkind himself
terms “the most decisive stage of developmert” and the “stage
of growing sexual demands.” What dishonesty and hypocrisy are
contained in the following:

Complete mutual trust and mutual respect, complete mutual hon-
esty— this is the prime prerequisite without which a healthy system of
education is impossible in the pioneer groups.

1 Translator’s note: Thr * not yet” is italicized in the orii^inal wliirii was wnitlen
in 1935: 8 years later, in 1943, the report came from the S.U. that co-
cduration had been ahalished. (Cf. comment in (he International Journal of Sex*
Economy and Orgonc- Research 2, 1943, 193f.)— T.P.W.

252 SOME PROBLEMS OF INFANTILE SEXUALITY

How can there be mutual trust and mutual respect between
children and educators if youth is not understood in one of their
most burning problems?

The child at pioneer age knows a good deal about sexual questions.
Only too much! Bui it does not know this iaet and does not know that
which it should know. And the leader cannot simply pass over this
aberration; he will ha\'e to talk. But how should he talk?

Yes, liow should the pioneer leader talk? Here is Salkinds
answer:

Certainly he slnaild not give tht* children iectures about the sexual
(juestion. More tlian lliat: lie should not talk with the children about
specific sexual subjects at all.

Does that mean tliat sexuality should be discussed only in
connection with social and political questions, which would be
correct? No. Here is Salkinds view of infantile and adolescent
sexuality:

In individual cliildren, careful observation discloses the presence ol
masturbation.

Great caution is needed on the part of the leader, because the chil-
dren are particularly sensitive [and rightly so, W.R.J if one tries to
fight these harmful habits of theirs . . .

This is precisely the way our German Father Hypocrite used
to talk! And further:

In any case, the teacher is allowed to exert an influence on the imme-
diate sexual sphere of the child only if he has had previous pedagogic
training. [One might ask, training by whom? And to what effect? To
the effect that masturbation is a harmful habit?] A public discussion
of such controversial subjects with the leader of the group as chainnan
is absolutely inadmissible. The thing must be nipped in the bud in a
personal interview. [What thing? The scandal that children and
adolescents masturbate?] In doing so, one has to use people of whose
sexual blamelessness one has convinced oneself.

AGAIN THE PROBLEM OF DELINQUENCY

253

This is what is supposed to be “coioplcte mutual honesty,”
No wonder that tlie pioneer groups showed “sexual delinc|ucncy,”
that is, a disturbed sex life full of contradictions.

The Salkinds liave never comprehended wliat c\ erv youngster,
though he may not be “sexually blameless,” knows spontaneously
from his own life: that it is never the sexual activity as such, but
the inln’bitions and educaLional metliods as advocated by Salkind
which create sexual deliiujiiency. Yet, Salkind stales:

Not . . . without urgent necessity, not without previous alarm
signals should the leader, among other c[ucstions, touch upon the
sexual question.

With sucli utter confusion in the leading circles, ]k)w could any
youth leader know his way?

Such pedagogues as Salkind cvnide the enormous dilBculties
wliich present themselves when one approaches the question of
infantile and adolescent sex life logically and consistently. One
cannot enlighten youngsters sexually and at the same time pro-
hibit sexual playing and masturbation. One cannot keep from
them the truth about tlie function of sexual gratification. All one
can do is to state the truth and to let life finally take its free
course. Sexual potency, physical vigor and beauty must become
enduring ideals in the fight for social progress. The revolution
cannot take as its ideal the beast of burden instead of the bull,
the capon instead of the cock. People have been beasts of burden
long enough. Castrates are no fighters for freedom.

4. ac;ain the problem of delinquency

The Russian revolution did not have at its disposal the neces-
sary number of educators, especially not of sexologically cor-
rectly trained educators to manage the gigantic problem of
juvenile delinquency. The final result of not understanding the
sexual revolt of youth was an accentuation of the delinquency
problem around 1935. It cannot be said that this new wave of
delinquency was a result of conditions of the civil war, for the

254 SOME PROBLEMS OF INFANTILE SEXUALITY

delinquents of 1935 were already children of the new social
system. The S.U. had tried everything to solve the problem of
delinquency. We must ask, tlien, why the solution of the problem
failed after all. That it failed, is shown by the following govern-
ment resolutions:

The Council of the peoples conimissars of the USSR and the
Central Coriiinittcc of the Communist Party find tliut the |)reseiice of
delinquent children in the cities and towns of the conntry—now, that
the material and cultural situation of the workers is steadily improv-
ing and the State gives considerable financial support to institutions
for children— is due mainly to the poor work done by the local Soviet
authorities and the organizations (of the party, of unions, of Kom-
somols) for the liquidation and prevention of juvc^n/le delijjquency,
and by the laclc of an organized participation of the general public
in this problem.

a) Most childrc'ii’s homes have insufficient financial support and
are educationally inadequate;

b ) The organized fight against rowdyism among children and against
criminal elements among children and adolescents is inadequate or
lacking;

c) The necessary measures have not been taken to get children who
have taken to the street (who have lost their parents or left them, or
escaped from an institution ) immediately to an institution or to retuni
them to their parents;

d) No measures are being taken against parents or guardians who
take an indifferent attitude and let their children engage in rowdyism,
larceny, moral degeneration and vagrancy, and they are not being
called to account.

So, the ‘poor wwk” of various organizations was blamed for
the situation. One took recourse again to the parents’ responsi-
bility and to measures which were no longer in accord with the
educational principles adopted by the revolution. Was it thal
these principles themselves had failed? No, they had onlv been
incomplete, they had left out the central problem, and often
enough consciously evaded it. This was the problem of the sex
life of children. Collectivistic ideology and collective living of

AGAIN THE ITIOBLEM OF DELINQUENCY

255

the adults, while at ihe same time the old sexual suppression of
children, sexual hypocrisy and family cducalion are maintained,
must inevilably lead to juvenile delimjHoicy. In tlu^ presence of
a general development toward freedom, the sexual demands of
the eluldren cannot be suppressed without harm to society and
the child.

In 1935, the Soviet government made a tremendous effort to
abolisli delinquency. The commissariats for education were or-
dered to place the children in liornes. The militia were authorized
to fine parents up to 200 rubles for their children's rowdyism
in tlie street. Parents and guardians were made financially re-
sponsible for any material damage caused by tlie children. If
parents were “negligent in the supervision of their children's
conduct" the children were to be taken away from them and
placed in liomcs at their expense.

The Norwegian Arhciderhladcf of June 16, 1935, reported that
the Soviet government liad to take recourse to mass arrests of
delinquent children. In addition to theft and looting, the jiaper
mentioned t])e infestation of the children witli \encrcal disease:
“Like a pestilence, the children carried tlie infection from one
place to another.” True, the children had public baths, children’s
homes and liospitals at their disposal, but tn.ey refused to avail
themselves of these institutions. Children escaped from homes
in great numbers. Tlie Arheiderhladet reported tliat the Isivestia
carried almost daily advertisements wiiich tried to locate escaped
children. “Until a short time ago, such advertisements hardly
ever appeared in tiic Russian press; now they a’ o cjuite common.”
The Soviet government tried the following measures: they pro-
vided (|ualilied teachers, tools and machines, educational films
and special textbooks. In addition, they tried to mobilize the
whole population for help in the problem.

In my talks with the Soviet educators Vera Schmidt and
Geshelina in 1929 I poined out again and again that such
measures were incomplete and hopeless in themselves. It was
clear that the delinquency problem, though it developed out of
the civil war conditions, was constantly being nourished by die

256 SOME PROBLEMS OF INFANTILE SEXUALITY

lack of clarity about sexual living. There was plenty of work in
the S.U. Work therapy was highly developed. There was no
iriore miemployiucnt. The children’s homes and the collectives
were well organized. But hi spile of ail tins, children kept running
away, kept preferring the dangerous destructive life of the streets
and its antisoeialiU^ to a hie in the children’s homes. It is a
gigantic problem wliicli cannot be solved by eduealion to work
or explained away by the romantic tendcjicies of youth. In Ger-
many, we had ample opportunity to study the true nature of
juvenile delinquency. When my endeavors in the interest of the
sexual healtli of vouth became known, more and more escaped
youngsters came to me and talked to me frankly and honestly—
because I understood their main problem— about their misery
and tlie true motives of their antisocial behavior. I can assure
the reader that among them there were a great many splendid,
highly intelligent and capable young people. Again and again I
found how much more vital tliese so-called deli])qucnts were
than all the well-behaved hypocrites, just because they did rebel
against a social order which denied them tlieir most primitive
natural right. There was little variation in their basic story.
Again and again the same thing: they Inid been unable to master
their sexual phantasies and excitations. Their parents had not
understood them; neither had the tcaclicrs or authorities. They
had been unable to talk with anybody about it. Thu.s they had
become secretive, distrustful and malicious. They had to keep
their troubles to themselves; only companions with a similar
structure and similar difficulties understood them. Since they
were not understood in school, they boycotted the school; since
the parents did not understand them, they cursed their parents.
Since, at the same time, they had a deep attachment to the
parents and unconsciously still expected help and consolation
from them, they developed severe guilt feelings and conflicts.
Tliis is what brought them to the street. There, they were not
happy either, but at least they felt free. That is, until the police
got hold of them and sent them to reform school, often enough
only because they, being 15, 16 or 17 years old, had been caught

AGAIN THE PllOBLEM OF DEUNQUENCY 257

togetlier with girls of ilieir owd age. In many of these youngsters
I found tliat they had been psychically lieallliy, endowed with
a sound judgment and rational rebellion, up to tlio moment
where they fell into the clutches of the police and tlie welfare
autliorities. From tliat moment on, tliey became psychopaths
and were socially ostracized. The crimes which society commits
against these adolescents are immeasurable. It was possible—
and this further confirmed the correctness of my views— to
straighten out such ‘‘delinquents” if one showed them in a prac-
tical way tliat one really understood them.

Even in countries like Germany the adolescent problem was
difficult and highly complicated. The conflict between the urgent
demands of sexuality and their social denial was of necessity
much more acute in a country like the S.U. where full freedom
was proclaimed while sexual suppression continued to exist. Gen-
eral collective living together with continuance of familial edu*
cation led inevitably to social explosions. The fact also has to be
remembered that the mothers were more and more included
in tlie process of production and public life and thus created a
new conflict in their relationship with the children. Since the
mothers were out at work and in public life, the children wanted
to go out into life also. The path into a life of work was opened
to them, but a great many were unwilling to take it if at the
same time that of sexuality remained barred to tliem. This, and
not the civil war— which in 1935 was already In'slory— and not the
Soviet svstein or anv otlier factors, was the acUial basis of de-
linquency. There is no doubt that juvenile delinquency is the
visible manifestation of the subterranean sexual crisis of infantile
and adolescent life. It is safe to predict that no society will suc-
ceed in mastering the problem of dclinqucnaj and psychopatJitj
in children and adolescents which does not 7misler the knowledge
and the courage to regulate the sex life of children and adoles-
cents in a sex-affirmative manner.

It is impossible to predict what concrete individual measures
will have to be taken; we can only point out general facts and
necessities. The solution of tlie problem of delinquency, like that

258 SOME PROBLEMS OF INFANTILE SEXUALITY

of education in general, will depend on whether it will be pos-
sible to eliminate from the process of structure formation the
incestuous and guilt-laden hate fixation of the children to the
parents and of the parents to the childroL Tliis will not be
possible unless the children enter collective education before
they are in a position to form these destructive attachments to
the parents, that is, before tlie fourth year of life. This does not
mean destruction of the natural love relationships between par-
ents and children, but only of the pathological, neurotic relation-
ships. The solution of the problem will be impossible until the
conflict between collec tive and family is solved on a broad social
scale. Parents and cliildren should be able to love and enjoy each
other fully. But, as paradoxical as it may sound, just that presup-
poses doing away witli the family and its education as they
function today. The problem will remain unsolved until we elimi-
nate the proscription of infantile sexuality and the resulting
feeling of expulsion from society because of sexual desires and
actions. It should be made impossible for reports like the fol-
lowing to appear:

“Garik, 6 years old: Tor goodness’ sake, what’s happened?’
Something unheard of. 8-year-old Lubka, hardly has she learned
to write. Tails in love’ and passes a slip of paper to the 8-year-old
Pavlik; ‘My sweet, rny honey, my diamond . . ‘To fall in love!
What a petit-bourgeois tiling to do! After all, the times of Tsar
Nicholas are ove?r!’ The matter was hotly debated and, as a
punishment, Lubka had to stay away from the playground for
3 days.” Thus writes Fanina Halle, to prove the morality of the
Soviet system, in her well-known book, The Woman in Soviet
Russia, where .she asks for the rehabilitation of communism in
the judgment of tlic whole “moral” world.

Educators and sexologists who are unable to tolerate the sight
of two children caressing each other, wlio cannot see the charm
and the naturalness of infantile sexuality, are completely useless
for a revolutionary education of the new generation, no matter
how good their intentions may be. There is, in the infantile sexual
impulse, in the infantile demonstration of sensual love, infinitely

259

AGAIN THE PROBEEM OF DEUNQUENCY

more genuine morality, strength and will to life than in thou-
sands of dry analyses and treatises. Here, in the aliveness of in-
fantile nature lies the guarantee for a society of really free human
beings, and only here.

That much is certain. But it would be dangerous to think that
with the simple finding of this fact the problems are solved. On
the contrary, we must realize that the alteration of human struc-
ture from the patriarchal and authoritarian life to a life in which
people are free, capable of voluntary achievement and capable
of natmal enjoyment will present the most difficult tasks. The
Marxist sentence that “the educator himself has to be educated”
has become an empty phrase. It is time to give it a concrete and
practical content: the educators of a new generation, parents,
teachers, government leaders and economists, must first be sex-
ually healthy tliemselvcs before they can even consent to a
sex-economic upbringing of children and adolescents.

Chapter XIV

THE LESSONS OF THE SOVIET
STRUGGLE FOR A ‘NEW LIFE’’

All those who are confronted with these problems in tlieir
everyday work will ask for concrete directions. Understandable
as this demand is, it cannot be fulfilled. One can only learn from
the failures of revolutionary changes what caused these attempts
to fail; one can only sketch the general outlines of the ways and
means of a new development which will lead in the desired direc-
tion. We cannot foresee just what will be the concrete circum-
stances in this or that country in tlie case of new revolutionary
changes. Whatever they may be, the same basic principles will
apply. Under no circumstances should one develop any Utopian
ideas; they would only block the way to tlie concrete realities
at any given time.

One of the basic principles which derive from the examination
of the inhibition of the sexual revolution is the explicit guarantee
of all the necessary prerequisites of sexual happiness. As far as
legislation is concerned, tlic Soviet sexual legislation of 1917 to
1921 was definitely in tliis direction; it would not require much
change. But that would by no means be sufficient. What is
needed are serious measures to see to it that these laws really
have a practical effect, that is, that they finally become part of
human structure. Apart from that, a series of measures was
lacking which would liave directed the spontaneous revolution
in sexual life into orderly channels.

In order to safeguard revolutionary sexual legislation, the re-
sponsibility for the sexual health of the population has to be
taken out of the hands of urologists, gynecologists and reaction-
ary social hygienists. Every single worker, every woman, every

260

THE LESSONS OF THE SOVIET STRUGGLE FOR A "nEW LIFe” 261

pcasiint and every adolescent must realize that in a reactionary
society there arc no aiithoritics at all in this field; that those who
consider themselves sexologists and social hygienists are per-
meated by ascetic attitudes and the concern for people’s “mo-
rality.” Everyone who has done extensive work with adolescents
knows that any untrained but healthy worker’s youth has a better
feeling for and more correct judgment about questions of sex
life than any of tliese so-called authorities. On the basis of this
correct feeding aTid knowledge, the workers sliould be able to
create organizations and appoint functionaries from their own
midst who will deal vvitli the problems of the sexual revolution.

The new regulation of sexual life must start with a different
education of the clnld. It is indispensable, therefore, that the
teachers be re-educated and that the people learn to use
their correct instinct in tne.se (juestions to criticize the educators
who have an incorrect sexological training. It will be much easier
to re-educate the teachers than it will be to con\ ince the physi-
cians and hygienists. There are steadily increasing indications
that progressi\^e educators in Western Europe and in America
spontaneously look for new methods in the education of children
and adolescents and often begin to develop sex-affirmative
concepts.

The reorganization of sexual life will not succeed unless the
political leaders of the workers’ movements give the problem the
attention that it deserves. Political leaders with an ascetic sexual
ideology are a severe hindrance. Leaders who are untrained in
this field and who are often themselves sexualb^ unhealthy will
have to realize that they themselves have to learn before tliey can
lead in this field. Furthermore, they will have to learn that the
spontaneous discussions about sexual problems cannot be
brushed aside as a “diversion from the class struggle.” On the
contrary, these discussions will have to lie made a part of the
total effort for the construction of a free society. The workers
should never again tolerate a situation in which ethical theorists,
compulsion neurotics and frigid women have the organization of
sexual life in their hands. One must realize that it is just tlie

262 THE LESSONS OF THE SO\TET STRUGGI.E FOR A ‘ NEW LIFE”

latter people who, urged by unconscious motives, begin to enter
the discussion just at a time when the situation calls for the
greatest clarity. The untrained worker then is usually rendered
silent out of respect for the intellectual and concedes—quite un-
justifiably—that the latter knows better. F.verv mass organization
will have to have sexologically well-trained functionaries who
have no other job tlian that of observing the (h'velopment of the
organization with regard to sexuality, to learn from these observa-
tions and to tackle the difficulties in conjunction with a central
sexological agenev.

Beyond the positive sexual legislation and tlie measures for its
safeguarding, there are a number of other measures which follow
as a result of pvist experience.

For example, any kind of literature which creates sexual
anxiety must be prohibited. This includes pornography and mys-
tery stories as well as gruesome fairv tales for children. This
literature will ha\ e to be replaced by one tliat, instead of horrors,
describes and discusses the genuine feeling for the infinitely
manifold sources of natural enjoyment in life.

Past experience shows unequivocally that any kind of hin-
drance of infantile and adolescent sexuality by parents, teachers
or government authorities has to be eliminated. In what way
this prohibition can be brought about it is impossible to say
toda\ . But the necessity for social and legal protection of in-
fantile and adolescent sexxmlitij can no longer be doubted.

The best of legal measures would be worth no more than the
paper they arc written on unless one were clear about all the
difficulties which will arise— under given conditions of politics
and human structure— from the affirmation of infantile and
adolescent sexualit^^ If parents and teachers were not wrongly
brought up and were not themselves sick, and if children and
adolescents could immediately be given the best educational
conditions, things would be simple. Since this is not the case, two
measures will be necessary at the same time:

a) The establishment, in various regions, of model institutions
for collective education, in which well-trained, realistic, sexually

THE I.ESSONS OF THE SOVIET STRUGGLE FOR A ‘ NEW LIFe” 263

healthy educators will closely study the development of the
growing generation and will solve practical problems as they
arise. Tliesc model institutions will be the nuclei from which
the principles of tljc new order will spread to society as a whole.
This will be long, difficult a.nd laborious work, but in the long
run will be tlie only possible way of dealing with human serf
structure. In addition, there should be research institutes where-
in a different way tlian hitherto— the study would be undertaken
of the physiology of sexuality, the prevention of psychic dis-
turbances and tl»e prerecpiisites of sexual hygie.ne. These insti-
tutes would no longer sec their function in the collection of
Indian phalhises and otlier sexological curiosa and in the formu-
lation of pseudo-scientific findings which detract attention from
the real facts.

b) Outside of these c'cnters, there would be the task of pre-
paring for a natural sex-economic regulation of sex life on a mass
scale. The first principle that wTmld have to be recognized here
is that sexual life is not a private affair. This should not be mis-
interpreted in the sense tliat some government agency or other
organization would have the riglit to meddle in anybody's sexual
secrets. It means that ihc concern for the alteration of human
sexual structure, for the establishment of their full sexual ca-
pacity, cannot be left to private initiative, but is a cardinal proh-
Icm of the totality of soried Vwine,

There are some measures wliich could be taken without diffi-
cultv if the sexual life of tlie inasses were not considered a matter
of secondary importance. Contraceptives sliodd be manufac-
tured with the sam(^ c;arc that is given to macliincs, under scien-
tific supervision and with the exclusion of profiteering. The
propagation of contraception as a means of fighting abortion
should be made effective in a practical way.

A repetition of the catastrophic failure of the Soviet sexual
revolution is unavoidable unless the room problem for adoles-
cents and unmarried people is solved. As I know the adolescents,
they will themselves gladly tackle the problem if given a chance
and will not wait for measures from above.

264 THE LESSONS OF THE SOVIET STRUGGLE FOR A ‘ NEW LIFE"'

The establishnie]! L of emergency homes for youths is a neces-
sity. It is possible unless there is some authority who objects to
tliem for moralistic reasons. Youth must be made to feel that they
have every opportunity to build their own lives. This will not
induce them to neglect their general social tasks. On the con-
trary, when they have a cliance gradually to solve the room prob-
lem themselves, they will tackle the social tasks with all the more
enthusiasm. The whole population must have the secure under-
standing that the government does everything possible to secure
sexual happiness, without any ifs, whens and buts. The enlighten-
ment of the masses about the harmfulness of abortion and the
danger of venereal diseases wiU become unnecessary to the same
extent to which the mass enlightenment about the value of
healthy natural sexuality progresses.

If people feel that their sexual needs are really understood in
a practical way they will gladly work, without compulsion. A
population living in sexual happiness will be the best guarantee
of general social security. It will joyfully build up its own life and
defend it against reactionary dangers.

If one is to avoid ‘‘sexual chaos” and the necessity of punitive
measures against homosexuality in the army and navy, one will
have to tackle one of the most difficult problems of social sex-
economy: the inclusion of female youth in the life of the army
and the navy. As inconceivable as this may sound to the military
specialists today: there is no other way to prevent the under-
mining of sexuality by army and navy life. Obviously, there is
no simple solution to this problem, but the principle is clear.^

Theater, film and literature should not, as was the case in the
S.U., be put at the exclusive service of economic problems. The
problems of sexual life which dominate most of the worlds
literature and films cannot be eliminated from the face of the
earth by tlie glorification of machines and of production. But
tlie reactionary, patriarchal treatment of sexual problems in lit-

i Translator's note: Cf. “A sex-cconomic prcdiciion come true.” International
Journal of Sex-economy and Or gone- Research 3, 1944, 80.— T.P.W.

THE LESSONS OF THE SOVIET STRUGGLE FOR A ‘ NEW LIFe” 265

crature and films and the cheap sentimentality should be re-
placed by progressive, rational treatment.

The general work in the sexological field should not be left
to untrained physicians and idealistic frigid women but, like any
other kind of social endeavor, should be collectively organized
and handled in an unbureaucratic fashion. There would be no
use in racking one’s brains about the details of such organization.
The question of organization will solve itself spontaneously once
the sox life of the masses becomes a primary f‘oncern of social
endeavor.

In no instance .should the new regulation of sexual life be
decreed by some central agency. A farflung network of sexo-
logical organizations should maintain the contact between the
masses and the professionally trained centers; as in the instruc-
tion evenings of the Sexpol in Germany, these orgatiizations
would bring up the problems from mass life for discussion and
would return to tlmir field work with whatever answers could be
worked out. The responsible scientists and leaders would have
to be scrutinized as to their sexual health and freedom from anv
ascetic and moralistic attitudes.

Religion should not be fought, but any interference with the
right to carry the findings of natural science to the masses and
with the attempts to secure their sexual happiness, should not
be tolerated. Then it would soon be apparent whether the church
is right in its contention of the supernatural origin of religious
feelings. However, children and adolescents should at all times
be rigidly protected against the implanting of sexual anxiety
and sexual guilt feelings.

In the process of the social revolution the old form of the
family will inevitably disintegrate. The family feelings and
attachments of the masses, which nevertheless continue to exist,
must be taken into account through ever-repeated public discus-
sion of tlie problems as they come up. The sex-economic stand-
point is the following:

The vegetative life of man wliich he shares with all living

266 THE LESSONS OF THE SOVIET STRUGGLE FOR A “nEW LIFE”

natiue, causes liini to strive for development, activity and pleas-
ure and to avoid unpleasure. This vegetative life is experienced
in the form of a sensation of cmreuts which urge for action.
These sensations are at the core of every progressive, that is,
revolutionary iileology. The so-called “religious experience” and
the “oceanic feeling,” also, are based on vegetative phenomena.
Only recently, it has been possible to demonstrate that vegetative
excitation is based on a bio-electrical charge of the tissues.

The religious feeling of unity with the universe, then, is based
on natural facts. But the mystification of the natural vegetative
sensations has resulted in their dulling. Primitive Christianity was
basically a communist movement. Its lile-iilfirmative power be-
came converted, by simultaneous sex-negation, into the ascetic
and supernatural. By taking the form of the church, Christianity,
which was striving for the delivery of humanity, denied its own
origin. Tlie church owes its power to the life-negating human
structure which results from a metaphysical interpretation of
life: it thrives on the life which it kills.

Marxist economic theory demonstrated the economic pre-
requisites of a progressive life. But its limitation by purely econo-
mistic and mechanistic concepts led to a dangerous swing in the
direction of life-negation with all its well-known signs. In these
years of heavy political struggles, this economism failed because
the comprehension of the vegetative will to life was condemned
as “psychology” and left to the mystics.

In the neopaganism of German National Socialism vegetative
life broke through again. The vegetative pulsation was better
comjnehended by the fascist ideology than by the church and
was taken out of the realm of the supernatural. From that point
of view, the National Socialist mysticism of the “surging of the
blood” and the “closeness to blood and soil” was a progress as
compared with tlic Christian concept of original sin; however, it
was again smothered in mystification and reactionary politics.
Thus, life-affirmation turns again to life-negation in the form of
ascetic ideologies of self-sacrifice, of serfdom and duty. In spite
of that, the teaching of original sin cannot be defended as against

THE LESSONS OF THE SOVIET STRUGGI-E FOR A “nEW LIFe” 267

the teaching of the “surging of the blood”; the latter will have
to be guided into different, positive channels.

This relationship between primitive Chrislianitv and neo-
paganism leads to many misunderstandiiigs. Some people claim
that ncopaganism is tlie revolutionary religion proper; they feel
its progressive tendency but fail to see its ir^ystical distortion.
Others feel t1»e church lias to be protected against the fascist
ideology and consider themsebes to be acting in a revolutionary
way. Many socialists stale that there should be a “religious feel-
ing”; they are right if tliey mean the vegetative sensations and
their free development; they are wrong in that they do not com-
prehend the actual negation of life. Nobodv dares as vet to ap-
proach the se‘xual core of life. Instead, unconscious sexual anxiety
(‘auses people to affirm life in the form of religious or revolu-
tioTiary experience and at the same time to negate it 1)y sex-
negation. The diagram (on p. 268) illustrates the above concepts.

Sex-economy arrives at the following conclusion from its find-
ings in natural science and from the social processes: The affirmch
lion of life nwsi he aided to fvdl developnienty in its std^jectwe
form of the affirmation of sexual pleasure and in its ohjecfwe social
form of a planned work democracy. It must be fought for in an
organized manner. Its greatest obstacle is human pleasure
anxiety.

This pleasure anxiety, the result of the sociallv caused dis-
turbance of the natural pleasure process, is tlie core of all the
difficulties one encounters in mass-psychological and sexological
endeavors, in the form of false modesty, moral i;:m, blind obedi-
ence to Fiihrers, etc. True, one is ashamed of being impotent,
just as one is ashamed of being a political reactionary. Sexual
potency is still the ideal, as is being revolutionary: every reac-
tionary today plays the revolutionary. But one does not want to
admit that one has missed one’s chances for happiness in life and
that they are gone forever. For this reason, the older generation
always fights concrete affirmation of life in youth. For the same
reason, youth turns conservative as it grows older. One does not
want to admit that one might have arranged things better for

268 THE LESSONS OF THE SOVIET STRUGGLE FOR A "nEW LIFE*'

SEX AFFIRMATION

as the core of a life-affirmative
culture

Neopaganism

Primitive Christianity

Patriarchal family

Primitive Religion (Religion = or-
gastic ecstasy)

SEX AFFmMAriON

Vegetative life

Diagram of cultural development

THE LESSONS OF THE SOVIET STRUGGLE FOR A “nEW LIFe” 269

oneself; that one now negates what one used to affirm; that the
realization of one’s own wishes would require a reorganization of
the total social process which would destroy so many clierished
illusions and substitute gratifications. One do(;s not want to curse
the executors of the authoritarian power and of ascetic ideology
because they ai’e called “father” and “mother.” So, one resigns
outwardly and continues to rebel inwardly.

However, tlie unfolding of life cannot be arrested. It is not by
accident that tlie social process was considered identical with the
process of nature. What socialist theorists call tlie “historical
necessity” is nothing but the actual biological necessity of the
unfolding of life. Its distortion into the ascetic, autlioritaiian and
life-negation will succeed again; but finally tin; natural powers in
man will be victorious in the unity of nature and cidture. All the
signs indicate that life is rebelling against the oppressive forms
into which it has been forced. The struggle for a “new life” is
taking place, although, as is inevitable at first, mainly in the
form of the most severe disorganization, material and psychic,
of individual and social life. But if one understands the life
process one has no reason to fear for the final outcome. A healthy
individual who has enough to eat does not steal. An individual
who is sexually happy does not need an inhibiting “morality” or
a supernatural “religious experience.” Basically, life is as simple
as that. It becomes complicated only by the human structure
which is characterized by the fear of life.

INDEX

Abortion, 30, 36f., 196fF.

Adolescent

sex life, actuality of, 86ff.
sexual intercourse, 11 Iff.
two types of, 83f.

Adultery, 35

Alexander, G. G. L., 181
Armor, 4

Athletics, 88f., 105
*‘Autliorities” in sexology, 45, 26 J

Barash, M., 101 n.

Batkis, 33 n., 183
Bender, Klara, 199
Benderskaya, 203
Biologism, 17, 51
Birtli rate, 36, 197f.

Bloch, 138f.

Bhupbacher, Fritz, 33, 106
Bryk, 35 n.

“Chaos,” 194
Clan, 161f.

Coeducation, 251
Compulsive marriage, ]29ff.
Contraception, 37f., 196ff., 263

Delinquency, 94ff., 253ff.
“Desexualization,” 205f.

Deulscher Bimd fiir Mutterschutz
und Sexualreforrn, 52ff.

Divorce, 57, 133ff., 146, 166
Double sexual morality, 35, 58, 143
Dulling of sexual desire, 122ff.
Dzerjinsky, 221

Education

for marriage, 57

sham -revolutionary, 247ft.

Engels, 46, 180
Equality of sexes, 57, 166

Faithfulness, 142

based on conscience, 125
based on gratification, 144
Family, authoritarian, 7 Iff.
abolition of the, 157ff.
goal of education, 74
political function, 79
sexual ideology, 73ff.
triangle structure, 75ff.

Female youth in army and navy, 264
Finkovsky, 173
Fischer, Louis, 176f.

Fischer, Ruth, 180
Fixation to parental home, 75ff.,
158ff., 225, 227ff.

Forel, Aitguste, 57ff’.

Freud

cultural philosophy, lOff.

Freud, Anna, 13, 18, 244f.

Frigidity, 50
Furbringer, 45f.

Genss, 33 n.

Gesiielina, 255

“Glass-of -water-theory,” 187f.

Gorky, 210
Gross-Hoffinger, 138
Gruber, Max, 34, 44ff., 107, 144

271

272

INDEX

Haberlin, 145
Haire, Norman, 31, 60
Halle, Fanina, 185, 205, 258
Hirschfeld, Magnus, 17, 33, 59,
208

Hodann, Max, 32, 82
Homosexuality
law against, 15 If.
reintroduction of homosexuality
paragraph, 208fF.

Honeymoon, 121

"Human dignity” of woman, 54f.

Ideals

revolutionary vs. reactionary,
215f., 237ff.

Ideology and economic basis, Xlf.,
182

"Inner discipline,” 96, 184, 234
Instinctual renunciation, 14ff.

Jealousy, 27f., 124

Kindergartens, 235ff.

Kobosev, 171

Kollontay, Alexandra, 170
Kolnai, 10
Koltsov, 173, 210
Koroliov, 199
Kosakov, 171
Krische, Paul, 50
Krivsky, 206
Kulkov, 172

Kulturbolschewismus, 20, 21
Laforgue, 10

Lasting sexual relationship, 1 19ff.

prerequisites, 122
Lebedeva, 139, 186
Legislation

and psychic structure, 169f.
patriarchal, 165
progressive sexual, 164f.

Lenin, 22, 166, 168, 180, 187flF., 212
Leunbach, J. H., 60f.

Lindsey, Ben B., 84, 9 Iff., 134ff.,
147

Literature

creating sexual anxiety, 262
"revolutionary,” 215f.

"Living out ” 13f., 102, 183f., 245
"Love techniques,” 124, 145
Lyssenko, 174

Malinowski, 35 n., 131 n.
Marcuse, Max, 37f.

Marital duty, 27
Marital morality, 34ff.

and sex reform, 5 Iff.

Markov, 172
Marriage

and divorce, 133ff.
formal vs. factual 116ff.

"serene,” 140
social function, 131 ff.

Marx, 154, 162, 180
Masturbation

and guilt feeling, 83
and incest phantasies, 82
in adolescence, 81, 109ff.
infantile, 18, 245
Matriarchy, 81, 157, 161
Mehnert, Klaus, 220, 223
Monogamy, 7, 97, 14 If.

Montessori, 242
Morality, two kinds, 28
Moral regulation, 3ff.

and secondary impulses, 21ff.
Muller-Braunschwtiig, 10, 15

Neopaganism, 266f.

"Objective, non-political” science,
40ff.

Oedipus complex, 75ff.

Olden, Balder, 212f.

INDEX

Pftstek, 10

Pleasure anxiety, 104, 267
Ploss-Bartels, 35 n., 81 ii.
Premarital cliaslity, 35ff., 42f., lOOIf.,
143f.

Prostitution, 35, 57, 95, 98
“Prostitution phantasies,” 1401.
Psyehoanalysis, sociological conse-
quences, lOff.

Reactive love, 1 19, 124
“Reality principle,” 19, 141, 246
Religion, 265
Roh>:im, 10, 236

Salkini), 248ff.

Schmidt, Vera, 238, 240ff.
Secondarv impulses, 21 H.
Self-reguiation, 3fP., 222, 225, 234,
238

Semashko, 189

Sex-affirmation, 162, 217, 234, 2401'.,
260, 267

Sex counselling, 107f., 114
Sex-economic “morality,” 2511.

Sex education, 6111., 11211., 186
Sexology, conservative, 4011.

Sexual abstinence, 41, 8011.
appearance ol, 86
and culture, 85

and venereal disease, 36, 43, 451.
in puberty, lOSflF.

Sexual atrophy, 48
Sexual relorm, 30flE., 1441.

273

Sexual repression and culture, lOff.
Sexuality

and ethics, 40, 58
and procreation, 37, 51, 207, 232
Shinka, 203
Smidovitch, 1881.

Social demand and sexual reality,
84flF.

Spielrein, 238
Stocker, Helene, 51
Strocanov, 206

Structure lormation, 176, 215, 23211.
Sublimation, 12ff., 19, 65, 85, 244

Tjmerdinc, 40, 42, 49
Trotsky, 159, 170, 180
Tseiixin, 173

Vaillant-Couturter, P., 178
Van de Velde, 39, 145

Westermark, 130
Wiese, 411.

Wolff, 33
Wolfsohn, 33 n.

World League lor Sexual Relorm,
59ff.

Yefimov, 202
Youth communes, 2121F.

Zelinsky, 2011.

Zelitsky, 203
Zetkin, Klara, 209

srfTfT 9rT?^ft sr9rr?T?T 3 t^^. j^^er^rr^nr

L,B.S. National Academy of Administration, Library

5F=r^cV

MUSSOORIE

/ ooT'^'7

This book is to be returned on the date last stamped

Date

Borrower’s

No.

Date

Borrower’s

No.

- - -

-•-

GL 176
REi

176

Rei

3TsrTrc?T

Class No

ACC. No....

5?cRT?!T.

. Book No.

f7f

LIBRARY {ob^o-^

UL BAHADUR SHASTRI

National Academy of Administration
MUSSOORIE

1 .

2 .

3 .

8 .

Accession No.

Booto ar* issued for 15 days only but
may have to be recalled earlier if urgen-
tly required. "

An over-due charge of 25 Paise per dav oer
votuma will be charged. ^

Booka may be renewed on request, at the
discration of the Librarian.

Pari^lMis, Rare and Reference books may
not ba issued and may be consulted only
In the Library. '

Brato lost, defaced or Injured in any way

‘•ouWo

176

Rei

3TsrTrc?T

Class No

ACC. No....

5?cRT?!T.

. Book No.

f7f

LIBRARY {ob^o-^

UL BAHADUR SHASTRI

National Academy of Administration
MUSSOORIE

1 .

2 .

3 .

8 .

Accession No.

Booto ar* issued for 15 days only but
may have to be recalled earlier if urgen-
tly required. "

An over-due charge of 25 Paise per dav oer
votuma will be charged. ^

Booka may be renewed on request, at the
discration of the Librarian.

Pari^lMis, Rare and Reference books may
not ba issued and may be consulted only
In the Library. '

Brato lost, defaced or Injured in any way

‘•ouWo

176

Rei

3TsrTrc?T

Class No

ACC. No....

5?cRT?!T.

. Book No.

f7f

LIBRARY {ob^o-^

UL BAHADUR SHASTRI

National Academy of Administration
MUSSOORIE

1 .

2 .

3 .

8 .

Accession No.

Booto ar* issued for 15 days only but
may have to be recalled earlier if urgen-
tly required. "

An over-due charge of 25 Paise per dav oer
votuma will be charged. ^

Booka may be renewed on request, at the
discration of the Librarian.

Pari^lMis, Rare and Reference books may
not ba issued and may be consulted only
In the Library. '

Brato lost, defaced or Injured in any way

‘•ouWo

176

Rei

3TsrTrc?T

Class No

ACC. No....

5?cRT?!T.

. Book No.

f7f

LIBRARY {ob^o-^

UL BAHADUR SHASTRI

National Academy of Administration
MUSSOORIE

1 .

2 .

3 .

8 .

Accession No.

Booto ar* issued for 15 days only but
may have to be recalled earlier if urgen-
tly required. "

An over-due charge of 25 Paise per dav oer
votuma will be charged. ^

Booka may be renewed on request, at the
discration of the Librarian.

Pari^lMis, Rare and Reference books may
not ba issued and may be consulted only
In the Library. '

Brato lost, defaced or Injured in any way

‘•ouWo

176

Rei

3TsrTrc?T

Class No

ACC. No....

5?cRT?!T.

. Book No.

f7f

LIBRARY {ob^o-^

UL BAHADUR SHASTRI

National Academy of Administration
MUSSOORIE

1 .

2 .

3 .

8 .

Accession No.

Booto ar* issued for 15 days only but
may have to be recalled earlier if urgen-
tly required. "

An over-due charge of 25 Paise per dav oer
votuma will be charged. ^

Booka may be renewed on request, at the
discration of the Librarian.

Pari^lMis, Rare and Reference books may
not ba issued and may be consulted only
In the Library. '

Brato lost, defaced or Injured in any way

‘•ouWo

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The Sexual Revolution (1945)"

See other formats